To

The Principal Secretary to Government,

Water Resources Department,
A.P. Secretariat,
VELAGAPUDI,
Guntur District (AP)
Sir,

Sub: Public Services – Water Resources Department - Sri S Venugopal, the then DEE, Irrigation
Sub Division, Kanigiri (Retired) – Allegations on the subject work “Construction of Check
dam - 2 across Jarudu Banda Vanka near Ramagopalapuram (V), Veligandla (M) of
Prakasam District (Work No. 25) (Annexure-45)” – Sanction under Rule 9 of AP Revised
Pension Rules 1980 for initiation of Departmental action - Proceedings under Rule 20 of the
APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 – Communication of Articles of Charges – Submission of Written
Statement of Defense –Reg.
Ref: GO Ms No 1792 & 1793, Water Resources (Vig-III-2) Department, Dt. 19.7.2022
communicated through the Engineer in Chief (A.W.), Water Resources Department, A.P.,
Vijayawada vide Endt. No. RC/ENC/K/AEE.1/22082210/ 2022/NC/PKM/W 25, Dt. 9.9.2022.
******

In response to the instructions contained therein the reference cited duly enclosing the Article of
Charges as shown under Annexure-I on the basis of imputations for misconduct or misbehavior in support of
every charge vide Annexure-II, I submit herewith the Written Statement of Defense fastening the substantial
evidences plays vital role in proving myself not guilty, since discharged my duties assiduously and earnestly
giving no scope for dereliction while functioning as Deputy Executive Engineer enunciating the incidents in a
chronological order for favour of perusal and kind consideration before deriving consensus as rational.
ANNEXURE-I
Sri S Venugopal, the then DEE, Irrigation Sub Division, Kanigiri has committed dereliction of duties
amounting to misconduct in violation of Rule (3) of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, as mentioned in the following
Article of Charges.
Article of Charge–I: That the said Sri S Venugopal while functioning as Deputy Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Sub Division, Kanigiri has check measured and recommended payment for excess thickness of
wearing coat on apron than the executed thickness for check dam resulting in rejection of work and causing loss
of Rs. 30,457/- to the Government Exchequer which is irregular and violation of Government norms & Neeru-
Chettu guidelines in execution of work “Construction of check dam – 2 across Jarudu banda Vanka kaluva
Kunta Vagu near Ramagopalapuram (V), Veligandla (M) of Prakasam District (Work No 25)”. Thus he has
committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct.
Article of Charge–II: That the said Sri S Venugopal while functioning as Deputy Executive Engineer in the
aforesaid office has allowed, check measured and recommended payment with excess rate of Rs. 89.20 than the
admissible rate of Rs. 40.10 for desilting and causing loss of Rs. 54,255/- to the Government Exchequer which
is irregular and violation of Government norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines in execution of aforesaid work.
Thus, he has committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct.
Article of Charge–III: That the said Sri S Venugopal while functioning as Deputy Executive Engineer in the
aforesaid office has proposed and submitted the estimate without identification of Mandal Team as per
guidelines, which is irregular and violation of Government norms & Neeru-Chettu guidelines in execution of
aforesaid work. Thus, he has committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct.
.ANNEXURE-II
The Vigilance and Enforcement Department was requested to conduct a discrete enquiry on the
irregularities during the implementation of Neeru-Chettu programme. Accordingly, the V&E officials have
verified the works taken up under Neeru-Chettu Programme at random in all the districts of Andhra Pradesh
considering the instructions of Government issued from time to time.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENSE:
Consequent to the rules / provisions / instructions forthcoming from the PWD Code, AP PW Accounts
Code, IS Codes, GOs etc. as directed by the Government for implementation of NEERU-CHETTU
PROGRAMME, the Written Statement of Defense furnished as under considering the events taken place in a
chronological order while discharging my duties in a lawful manner to sustain the status of Water Resources
Department unblemished.
SYNOPSIS:
On thorough study of the Vigilance Report No. 10 (C No. 4916/V&E/ Engg/2019, Dt.
4.9.2020 to the extent of subject work connected with relevant documents / registers clearly evince the
infringements unremittingly committed by the KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Guntur together with Vigilance
and Enforcement authorities from the date of extraction of Core Specimen from the check dam to the date of
testing at Guntur enunciated as under for thorough scrutiny and detailed analysis by the benevolent authorities
before deriving consensus as justified.
DETAILED REPLIES TO ARTICLE OF CHARGE - I:
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:
1. In pursuance to the provisions incorporated there in the Para 49 of AP PWD Department Code
(enclosed as A-1) as “the Subordinate Engineers are responsible to the Executive Engineer in
charge of the division for the management and execution of works”, the resolution received from
the JBMV Committee through the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer was submitted to the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole since being attached with the post designated as
Constituency Officer for implementation of Neeru-Chettu Programme together with the provisions
contemplated therein the GO Ms No 22, Dt. 9.10.2014 (enclosed as A-2) “shall continue to be
respective committees for the Janmabhoomi-Maavooru Programme also and directed as in coordination
shall finalize the programme details and coordinate the work during the JBMV for respective areas”
identified for entrustment of work to be carried out by Sri B Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Ranga Subba
Reddy, Ramagopalapuram (V) in Veligandla (M) of Prakasam District through the resolution (enclosed
as A-3) unanimously attended by the majority of members present in the meeting together with the
presence of Panchayat Secretary and MPDO (Member of Nodal Team) confer the prerequisite for
construction of check dam in lieu of NODAL TEAM.
2. Consequent to accordance of Administrative Approval by the District Collector, Prakasam
District, Ongole vide Proc. No. Rc. DB/D1/W/483, Dt. 15.5.2017 (enclosed as A-4) for
“Construction of check dam – 2 across Jarudu Banda Vanka Kaluva Kunta Vagu near
Ramagopalapuram (V) of Veligandla (M) in Prakasam District” for Rs. 9.08 Lakhs; the Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole accorded Technical sanction to the estimate for Rs. 9,08,000/-
 vide DR No. 208/2017-18 on Dt. 17.5.2017 (enclosed as A-5) and concluded Agreement with Sri B
Rama Chandra Reddy S/o Ranga Subba Reddy, Ramagopalapuram (V) of Veligandla (M) in
Prakasam District for Rs. 8,14,487/- vide Divisional Agt. No. 135 Dn/2017-18 on Dt. 31.5.2017
(enclosed as A-6) allowing the working period as 90 days.
3. In pursuance to the instructions issued by the Government from time to time for completion of works
taken up under Neeru-Chettu, “Construction of Check dam-2 across Jarudu Banda Vanka Kaluva near
Ramagopalapuram (V) of Veligandla (M) in Prakasam District” was completed simultaneously along
with ……. No. works (enclosed as A-7) without deprive off the confidence and fervor ascertaining
cooperation of agencies encompass with enthusiastic villagers to complete the works as most primitive
without compromisation in quality so as to keep the reputation of Water Resources Department
unblemished.
4. In accordance with the provisions made in the AP PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT
CODE vide Para 297(i)(a) (enclosed as A-8)the Sub Divisional Officers
should necessarily check measure before payment and in proper time in
the following cases.
i. all final bills on running accounts
ii. All first and final bills over Rs. 500; and
iii. Working including in all kinds of bills over Rs. 100/- (GO Ms No 244,
PWD DT. 4.10.1960) which will not be susceptible of check measurement
after a certain stage. For example works in channel, river or tank beds,
foundations which will be covered up etc. (GO Ms No 2445 PWD,
Dt.4.10.1960)
(b) As regards other bills not pertaining to works of the kind mentioned
in item (iii) in the above sub clause, viz. (i) intermediate bills on
running accounts and (ii) first and final bills over Rs. 100 and not
over Rs. 500, Sub Divisional Officers should check measure a large
proportion of them. if in such cases, it is not possible for the Sub
Divisional Officer to check measure before payment owing to
pressure of work etc., then the reasons for not having done the
check measurement before payment should be recorded by him in
the “remarks” column of the measurements concerned and the
check measurement should be done by him at the earliest
opportunity after Payment has been made. (GO Ms No 508 PWD,
Dt.17.3.1966).
5. In pursuance to the provisions made under caption “Preparation, Examination
and Payment of Bills” under Para 306 of “AP PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT
CODE” (enclosed as A-9) as “Before the bills of a contractor is prepared,
the entries in the measurement book relating to the description and
quantities of work or supplies should be scrutinized by the Sub Divisional
 Officer and the calculations of “contents or area” should be checked
arithmetically under his supervision. He need not work out personally all
“contents or area”, but he is responsible for the correctness of those
entries. The rates allowed should be entered by the Sub Divisional Officer
in the abstract of measurements vide Para 294 ©. The bill should then be
prepared from the measurement entries in one of the forms prescribed in
paragraphs 298 to 305 applicable to the case. Full rates as per agreement,
catalogue, indent or other order should be allowed only if the quality of work
done or supplies made is upto stipulated specification. When the work or supplies
fall short of that standard and under the agreement, it is permissible to make a
final payment if the contract is determined or on an account payment if the
contract is to run only such a fraction of the full rate should be allowed as is
considered reasonable with due regard to the work remaining to be done and the
general terms of the agreement.
6. In accordance with the provisions incorporated therein the AP PUBLIC WORKS
ACCOUNT CODE enunciated as above, the measurements recorded therein
the Measurement Books by the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer
towards various component works were thoroughly scrutinized and
check measured ensuing the items of work carried out in accordance
with the specifications incorporated therein the Agreement comply with
APDSS enunciated as under liable for submission of LS-I and Final Bill received
from the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Division, Ongole (enclosed as A-10) for taking further action as per the
instructions contemplated therein the GO Rt No 187, Dt. 19.4.2017 (enclosed
as A-11) duly correlating with the Establishment of Monitoring Cell,
Establishment of Web-Portal and Quality Control authorities for issue of Quality
Control Certificate on thorough verification of each and every work taken up by
the agency.
7. The Deputy Executive Engineer, QC & I Sub Division, Ongole has issued Quality
Control Certificate on Dt. 29.3.2018 (enclosed as A-12) duly abiding the
instructions contained therein the GO Rt No. 187, Dt. 19.4.2017 clearly
affirming that “This is to certify that the number of Quality Control Checks
and tests have been conducted as per Codal provisions and observations
are recorded in the field registers during execution of work in respect of
LS 1st and Part Bill for Rs. 7,51,851/- and found satisfactory based on the
field tests carried out” after verification of the Core Specimen test reports
obtained from Balaji Civil Engineering Laboratory, Ongole with ISO 9001:
2015 – Certified Organisation on Dt. 27.3.2018 (enclosed as A-13).
 8. Specific provision has been made in the AP Standard Specifications vide PS 28 - Defects,
Shrinkage, etc after completion (enclosed as A-14) as “Any defects, shrinkage or other faults
which may appear within six months (defect liability period now amended as two years) from the
completion of the works arising in the opinion of the Executive Engineer , from faulty materials
or workmanship not in accordance with the drawings and specifications or the instructions of the
Executive Engineer, shall upon the directions in writing of the Executive Engineer and within
such reasonable time shall as be specified therein, be amended and made good by the contractor
at his own cost, unless the Executive Engineer shall decide that the contractor ought to be paid
for the same at the rates agreed or such reduced or other rates as the Executive Engineer may fix
and in case of default, the Executive Engineer may employ and pay other persons to amend and
make good such defects, shrinkage or other faults or damage and all expenses consequent
thereon and incidental thereto shall be borne by the contractor”.
9. Specific provision has been made in the AP Standard Specifications vide PS 29 - Executive
Engineer’s decision (enclosed as A-15) as “To prevent disputes and litigation, it shall be accepted
as in inseparable part of the contract that in matters regarding materials, workshmanship,
removal of improper work, interpretation of the contract drawings and contract specifications,
mode of procedure and the carrying out of the work, the decision of the Executive Engineer shall
be final and binding on the contractor and in any technical question which may arise touching
the contract, the Executive Engineer’s decision shall be final and conclusive.
10. Specific provision has been made in the AP Standard Specifications vide PS 30 -Dismissal of
workmen (enclosed as A-16) as “the contactor shall on the request of the Executive Engineer,
immediately dismiss from the works any person employed thereon who may in the opinion of the
Executive Engineer , be incompetent or misconduct himself and such person shall not be again
employed on the works without the written permission of the Executive Engineer, but the
contractor may appeal to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle against such dismissal”.
11. Provision made in the AP Standard Specifications vide PS 31 Contractor’s maistri or agent and
Contactor’s staff (enclosed as A-17) as “the contractor shall in his own absence keep constantly on
the works a competent maistri or agent and any directions or explanations given by the Executive
Engineer or his representative to such maistri or agent shall be held to have been given to the
contractor. The contractor shall further provide all staff which is necessary for the supervision,
execution, and measurement of work to ensure full compliance with the terms of the contract.”
CONCLUSION: In accordance with the specifications combined with the terms & conditions
stipulated therein the Agreement comply with the provisions imminent from AP PUBLIC WORKS
ACCOUNTS CODE vide Para 297 – Check measurement of works and Para 306-Preparation,
Examination and Payment of Bills towards the necessicity for check measurement of working items connected
with the subject work was done and further submitted the bill to the Executive Engineer for taking further
necessary action as per the instructions contained therein the GO Rt No 187, Dt. 19.4.2017 together the
provisions incorporated therein the keeping in mind of the provisions accomplishing the instructions contained
there under PS 28-Defects, shrinkage etc after completion, PS 29-Executive Engineer’s decision, PS 30-
Dismisal of workmen and PS 31-Contractor’s maistri or agent and Contractor’s staff of AP STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS.
 Under prevalence of rules enforcing for strict adherence by the Deputy Executive Engineer and
the Executive Engineer as above, alleging the undersigned committed dereliction of duties for check
measurement and recommended payment for excess thickness of wearing coat on apron and
incorporation therein the Vigilance Report No. 10, Dt. 4.9.2020 unilateral, without exhibiting
the evidences at the time of extraction of core specimen for other items of works shall deemed to perceive
as an act of menace and can ensure as unsustainable as if thoroughly examined the connected documents
by the benevolent authorities.
DETAILED REPLIES TO ARTICLE OF CHARGE - II:
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:

Keeping in view of the specifications along with terms and conditions stipulated therein the Agreement
ensured to achieve quality of work as Deputy Executive Engineer with devotion and integrity and in accordance
with the provisions looming from the AP PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNTS CODE vide Para 297 – Check
measurement of works and Para 306-Preparation, Examination and Payment of Bills enunciating the
essentiality for check measurement of working items connected with the subject work submitted the Bill to the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole after attending check measurement of items of work as per the
procedure in vogue in accordance with instructions therein the GO Rt No 187, Dt. 19.4.2017 without
discrimination.
Further, it may not inappropriate to enunciate regarding the rule position prescribed there under Para
45 of AP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CODE (enclosed as A-18) as “the Executive Engineer is
responsible for the engineering features of designs and the rate in estimates prepared or sanctioned by
him”.
CONCLUSION: In view of the existing rule position covered under Para 45 of AP PWD Code put
forth before the benevolent authorities as above, strappingly affirm that the allegations made towards the
undersigned as irregular and acted in violation of Government norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines in execution
of aforesaid work conferring that the undersigned resorted to dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct is
baseless and may not be sustainable as if examined the connected documents without prejudice.
DETAILED REPLIES TO ARTICLE OF CHARGE - III:
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:
12. It may not be appropriate to return the proposals received from the villagers of Ramagopalapuram
consequent to the provisions incorporated there in the Para 49 of AP PWD Department Code as “the
Subordinate Engineers who are responsible to the Executive Engineer in charge of the Division
for the management and execution of works” submitted the proposals to the Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Division, Ongole for accordance of Administrative Approval from the District Collector,
Prakasam District for the subject work without any bigotry for effective implementation of Neeru-
Chettu programme not to deprive off the villagers who approached aspiring for construction of Check
dam in view of the following significant points imminent from orders of Government towards
implementation of NEERU-CHETTU PROGRAMME.
a) In accordance with the provisions incorporated therein the GO Ms No 22, Planning (VII)
Department, Dt. 9.10.2014, Gram Panchayat Committee constituted with Sarpanch as
 President, MPTC as member, 2 No of SHG and 2 No of Social Activists shall act as
Committee for Janmabhoomi-Maa Vooru Programme.
b) Memo No. 10444/CAD.1/2014-16, Dt. 18.2.2015 (enclosed as A-19) clearly enunciate that the
Government accorded very high priority to Neeru-Chettu with a view to improve water
conservation and management in the State in order to make the State drought proof .
c) The instructions of Government vide GO Rt No. 531, Water Resources (CAD) Department,
Dt. 14.8.2015 (enclosed as A-20) enunciated as the Government accorded permission to
entrust the Neeru-Chettu delisting works to Janmabhoomi-Maavooru Committees for
effective implementation of Neeru-Chettu Programme. The Government felt that the
programme was contemplated to achieve early benefits with low cost and different from
the routine nature of commercial contracts and also a community based programme for
the collective benefit of the entire village as a unit.
d) Keeping in view of the instructions contained therein the Memo No. 10444/CAD.I/2015-190,
Dt. 19.5.2016 (enclosed as A-21) of Water Resources Department accorded permission for
construction of check dams across 1st and 2nd order streams with the following guidelines.
i. The powers for according necessary administrative approval for construction of
check dams across 1st and 2nd order streams are delegated to the District Collectors
under Neeru-Chettu Programme.
ii. The District Water Resources Officer (Chief Engineer, Projects, Ongole) shall
prepare plan to take up series of check dams in a comprehensive manner for the
selected streams duly preparing an action plan on number of check dams already
constructed and now proposed to be constructed and ascertaining the impact of the
check dams already constructed and submit the same to the district collectors for
according administrative sanctions in a phased manner.
iii. The District Water Resources Officers are permitted to accord hydrological
clearance for check dams with a capacity of upto 1 M Cft.
iv. The construction of check dams under Neeru-Chettu Programme shall be taken up
on the streams where the rural development department is not taking up the check
dams under MGNREGS.
13. ENTRUSTMENT: Instructions of Government vide GO Ms No 46, I&CAD Dept.,
Dt. 24.2.2017 (enclosed as A-22) enunciated as under:
a. The Government notified that Farmers’ Organsation shall take up the normal operation and
maintenance works and deferred maintenance works.
b. Under no circumstances can a Chairman / President or Managing Committee member of the
farmers’ Organisation execute a work directly in his individual capacity.
c. In exigencies, when any of the Farmers’ Organisations is not existing or functioning, by any
reason the works shall be taken up by the User groups or Ayacutdars Committees. If none of
them come forward for execution of the same, then the works shall be completed by the
department duly following the rules and procedures.
 d. The check dams now proposed for construction shall be meant primarily for water
conservation, i.e. percolation and recharge of ground water and shall not be delivered to any other
purpose.
14. Specific instructions communicated by the Government vide GO Rt No 187, Water Resources (CAD)
Department, Dt. 19.4.2017 (enclosed as A-23) enunciated as under:
a) The Chief Engineer (Project), Ongole appointed as District Water Resources Officer for
Prakasam District and made responsible for effective implementation of the Neeru-Chettu in
the district. He shall report the daily progress of all the works taken up in the district to the office
of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Ministers and to Secretaries of concerned line
department. He shall also co-ordinate with the District Collectors and Superintending
Engineers and other HOD’s available in the district and issue timely orders if any required
for implementation of Neeru-Chettu.
b) There should not be any drought in the coming years and the Water Resources Department
is the custodian of all Water Resources and water related works in the State. The District
Water Resources Officer should prepare the District Project Report containing all details of water
Resources of the District. The Chief Engineers are appointed to each district to review the
progress of the Neeru-Chettu works. The Chief Engineers should actively participate in
effective implementation of Neeru-Chettu guidelines issued from time to time by the
Government.
c) The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Ongole appointed as Nodal Officer for
Prakasam District and made responsible for effective implementation and review of progress
of works taken up under Neeru-Chettu within Prakasam District and shall report daily
progress of all the works taken up in the District to the DWRO, i.e. Chief Engineer, appointed for
the district, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation and the District Collector.
d) Further the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole appointed as Divisional Officer
and made responsible for effective implementation and progress o works taken up under
Neeru-Chettu within the division and he shall report daily progress of works taken up under
Neeru-Chettu to the Nodal Officer (SE).
e) In pursuance to the OBJECTIVES provided there under Para 3.0 of GO cited in relaxation of
provision for deriving consensus on technical features under Para 5.3.7 of the GO cited as “the
area within the tank where desiltation is to be done will be decided by the Water Resources
Department Officials strictly in accordance with the technical guidelines”;
15. Keeping in view of the instructions of Government for making the state drought proof and
provide water security to all its citizens for drinking, irrigation etc., the District Collector,
Prakasam District accorded Administrative Approval for the subject work vide Proc. No.
DB/D1/W/483, Dt. 15.5.2017 without any queries giving no importance for such objections leveled
against the undersigned.
CONCLUSION: Consequent to the provisions incorporated therein the Codes, GOs, Memos etc.
enunciated as above submitted the estimate for “Construction of check dam-2 across Jarudu banda Vanka
Kaluva Kunta Vagu near Ramagopalapuram (V) of Veligandla (M) in Prakasam District” with true spirit as the
“Government felt that the programme was contemplated to achieve early benefits with low cost and different
from the routine nature of commercial contracts and also a community based programme for the collective
benefit of the entire village as a unit” henceforth, alleging the undersigned acted in violation of “devotion to
duties” and “lack of integrity” without show specific signs of substantiative evidences shall be ignored and
treated as unfounded by the benevolent authorities without prejudice.
REASONS FOR DENYING CHARGES UNDER RULE 3 OF APCS (CONDUCT) RULES – 1964:
DEVOTION TO DUTY: A Government employee is expected to display devotion to duty. It has been held
that devotion to duty implies due care on the part of the employee in the performance of work assigned to him.
The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of the expression “devotion to duty” and has observed as
follows:
“The expression ‘devotion to duty’ appears to have been used as something opposed to indifference to
duty or easy going or light hearted approach to duty. If rule 3 were the only rule in the Conduct Rules it would
have been rather difficult to ascertain what constitutes misconduct in a given situation. The Code of conduct
being not exhaustive it would not be prudent to say that only that act or omission would constitute misconduct
for the purpose of Discipline and Appeal Rules which is contrary to the various provisions in the Conduct Rules.
The inhibitions in the Conduct Rules clearly provide that an act or omission contrary thereto so as to run counter
to the expected code of conduct could certainly constitute misconduct. Allegations in the various charges do not
specify any act or omission in derogation of or contrary to conduct rules save the General Rule 3 prescribing
devotion to duty. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the high standard of
administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer
rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicated lack of
efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapse on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies
in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary
proceedings.”
UNBECOMING OR MISCONDUCT: The Rule 3 requires that a Government servant shall do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Obviously, these rules are not exhaustive with relation to the
conduct of Government servants. It is the exigencies of circumstances that alone can determine as to what is
becoming or unbecoming for a Government servant to do or not to do.
As stated above, the rules are not exhaustive in relation to the code of conduct specified in these rules.
There exists what is known as an “Unwritten code of conduct” which must be observed by every Govt. servant.
The Government servants should conduct themselves not only in accordance with any specified orders of
Government regulating the behavior and conduct which may be enforced but also in accordance with any
implied orders – that is to say, he must also honour the implications of the various orders of the Government
taken as a whole. There is no doubt that this rule refers to the unwritten code of conduct and requires
Governments to behave like decent citizens in their private lives. Every Govt. servant is expected to observe
certain standards of decency and morality in his private life. For example, the State has the power to determine
that no Government servant shall remarry during the life time of his first wife. It may require its officials not to
drink alcoholic liquors at social functions. If Government were to sit back and permit its officials to commit any
outrage in their private lives provided it falls short of a criminal offence, the result may very well be a
catastrophic fall in the normal prestige of the administration.
It is the duty of the servant to be loyal, diligent, faithful and obedient. The liability to respect and the
recognition of a subordinate role on the part of an employee also flows from the nature of the contract. Thus
disobedience, insubordination and acts subversive of discipline are the recognized misconducts because these
acts are contrary to the obligations imposed on an employee by the nature of contract itself and can freely be
treated as implied.
Under this Rule no Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such
employee or derogatory to the prestige of the Government. It is not possible to define the phrase “conduct
unbecoming of a Government servant” with exactitude.
The said phrase has however been explained by the Madras High Court in R Srinivasan vs. Union of
India, 1981 (3) SLR 639 as follows:
“What is conduct unbecoming of a Government servant has not been defined or explained in the
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. According to Webster’s International Dictionary, the word
‘unbecoming’ means ‘unsuitable’, ‘indecorous’, ‘improper’. In the light of the ordinary dictionary meaning of
the word, a conduct which is indecent, reprehensible or abominable involving moral though not legal lapse, is
conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. In the instant case, if the appellant had not paid the rent even
after the bill was sent to him or claimed house rent allowance from the Government without paying the rent to
the Lodge, or had done some favours by virtue of his official position and was expecting that recovery of rent
may be waived by the Lodge or that his financial position was so weak that he could never have been expected
to pay the rent, they may indicate a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. An innocent indiscreet act on
the part of the appellant in not paying the rent in the hope that he can pay the same as soon as the monthly rent is
fixed, cannot be characterized as conduct unbecoming of a Government servant, especially when a Government
servant is permitted to have credit facilities with a bonafide trader under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules 1964”.
It is for the employer to consider reasonably what conduct should be treated as misconduct. No general
rule in this behalf can be laid down.
In view of the position explained above in detail, the charge framed implying Rule 3 of APCS
(Conduct) 1964 may not be justifiable, hence denied.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
At the outset, it is humbly submitted that in view of the reasons enunciated as above for denying the
charges consequent to the widespread works simultaneously grounded in the jurisdiction under NEERU-
CHETTU PROGRAMME together with the undersigned functioning as CONSTITUENCY OFFICER FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEERU-CHETTU PROGRAMME for effective implementation parting with
insufficient time for supervision of all the component items of the work. However it is able to complete the
works with the support of villagers having enthusiasm in supervision of works under guidance of the department
officers for achieving quality without discrimination. After thorough inspection of the component items of the
subject work and ensuring quality of works alone, the Quality Control Authorities issued CERTIFICATE enable
the undersigned to recommend for payment to the agency without discrimination in accordance with the
instructions contained therein the GO Rt No 187, Dt. 19.4.2017. Henceforth, alleging the
undersigned as responsible for recommendation of payment for excess thickness of wearing coat on apron,
recommendation of excess rate for desilting together with submission of estimate without identification of
Mandal Team as per guidelines confer as baseless and unsustainable as if examined the connected records by the
benevolent authorities without prejudice.
 Notwithstanding the exigencies prevailing for implementation of NEERU-CHETTU PROGRAMME
as a primitive facet to conserve water during monsoon period to utilize during the rest of year for drinking
purpose etc. I worked diligently abiding the rule position / instructions / guidelines provided therein the AP
PWD Code, APDSS, AP PW Accounts Code, GOs, Memos etc connected with implementation of NEERU-
CHETTU PROGRAMME enunciated as above giving no scope for any dissent from the public or from higher
authorities as I performed duties without any dereliction as Deputy Executive Engineer of Irrigation Sub
Division, Kanigiri under prevalence of catastrophic conditions without fear discreetly, sincerely and honestly in
completion of works during the working season to achieve targets as fixed by the Government.
In view of the rules / information imminent enunciated as above and no evidences are forthcoming to
prove myself guilty and implying Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rule 3 may not be justifiable, henceforth
appealing for orders abating further action in this matter.
For which act of kindness, I shall be ever grateful to you Sir,
Encl: Annexure
Yours faithfully,

(S Venugopal)
The then Deputy Executive Engineer (Retd.),
Irrigation Sub Division,
KANIGIRI,
Prakasam District.

Copy submitted to the Engineer in Chief (Admn), Currency Nagar, Vijayawada in response to the Endt. No.
RC/ENC/K/AEE.1/22082210/2022/NC/PKM/W.25, Dt. 9.9.2022 for favour of information and necessary
action.
 ANNEXURE
Pages Total
S No Description of reference
From To Pages
I Written Statement of Defense
II Annexure enclosed:
1 Extract of Para 49 of AP PWD Code.
2 GO Rt No 22, Planning (VII) Department, Dt. 9.10.2014
Copy of JBMV Committee resolution (Dt. 15.5.2017) for entrusting the
3
work to carried out by Sri B Ramachandra Reddy
Copy of Administrative Approval No Rc DB/D1/W/483,
4
Dt. 15.5.2017
Copy of Sanctioned Estimate vide DR No. 208/2017-18, Dt.
5
17.5.2017
6 Copy of Agt. No. 135Dn/2017-18, Dt. 31.5.2017
List of works executed simultaneously with the subject work during the
7
financial year
8 Extract of Para 297 (i)(a) of AP Accounts Code
9 Extract of Para 306 of AP Accounts Code
10 Copy of LS-I & Final Bill
11 Extract of GO Rt No 187, Dt.19.4.2017
Copy of Quality Control Certificate issued by the DEE, I&QC Sub
12
Division, Ongole Dt. 29.3.2018.
Copy of Test Reports of core specimens extracted and tested by Balaji
13
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Ongole
14 Para 28 of APDSS
15 Para 29 of APDSS
16 Para 30 of APDSS
17 Para 31 of APDSS
18 Para 45 of AP PWD Code
19 Govt. Memo. No. 10444/CAD.1/2014-16. Dt. 18.2.2015
GO Rt No. 531, Water Resources (CAD) Department,
20
Dt. 14.8.2015
21 Memo No. 10444/CAD.I/2015-190, Dt. 19.5.2016
22 GO Ms No 46, I&CAD Dept., Dt. 24.2.2017
23 GO Rt No 187, WRD, Dt. 19.4.2017.