To

The Principal Secretary to Government,

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

Sub: Public Services – Water Resources Department - Sri MJ Ravi Kumar the
then Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Podili –
“Construction of Check dam across Nalla Vagu near Muppavaram
(V) in Kondepi (M) of Prakasam District (Work No. 40, Annexure-
60) taken up under Neeru-Chettu Programme – Departmental Proceedings
under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 – Communication of Article
of Charge – Submission of Written Statement of Defense –Reg.
Ref: GO Ms No 1277, Water Resources (Vig-III-2) Department, Dt. 12.5.2022
communicated through the Engineer in Chief (Admn.), Water Resources
Department, A.P., Vijayawada vide Endt. No. RC/ENC/K/AEE.1/22051608/
2022/NC/PKM/W.40, Dt. 2.6.2022.
******

In response to the instructions contained therein the reference cited while

enclosing Article of Charge as shown under Annexure-I on the basis of imputations for
misconduct or misbehavior in support of charge vide Annexure-II, I submit herewith the
Written Statement of Defense attaching significant evidences plays vital role in proving
myself not guilty, since discharged my duties diligently and candidly giving no scope for
dereliction while functioning as Assistant Executive Engineer enunciating the incidents in
a chronological order for favour of perusal and kind consideration before deriving
consensus as deemed fit.
ANNEXURE-I
SriMJ Ravi Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer 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 Charge.
Article of Charge–I: That the said Sri MJ Ravi Kumar while functioning asAEE,
Irrigation Sub Division, Podili has recorded and recommended payment for partial
defective cement concrete work of guide walls in construction of check dam and caused
loss of Rs. 2,52,252/- to the Government Exchequer which is irregular and violation of
Government norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines in execution of work “Construction of
check dam across Nalla Vagu near Muppavaram (V) in Kondepi (M) of Prakasam District
(work No 40)”. Thus he has committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct.
Article of Charge–II: That the said Sri MJ Ravi Kumar while functioning as
Assistant Executive Engineer in the aforesaid office has proposed and submitted the
estimate without identification of work by the Mandal Team as per guidelines 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.
ANNEXURE-II
The Vigilance and Enforcement Department was requested to conduct a discrete
enquiry on the irregularities during 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 looming from the PWD 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
occurrences taken place in a chronological order while discharging duties in a reasonable
manner to sustain the status of Water Resources Department untarnished.
SYNOPSIS:
On thorough study of the Vigilance Report No. 10 (C No. 4916/V&E/ Engg/2019,
Dt. 4.9.2020 to the extent connected to the subject work with the relevant documents /
registers clearly envisage the infringements unremittingly committed by KDM Engineers
(India) Pvt. Ltd., Guntur together with Vigilance and Enforcement authorities from the
date of extraction of Core Specimens from the check dam to the date of testing at
Laboratories enunciated as under for thorough scrutiny and detailed analysis by the
benevolent authorities before deriving consensus as reasonable.
1. In accordance with the provisions incorporated therein the GO Ms No. 22, Planning (VII)
Department, Dt. 9.10.2014(enclosed as A-1) theGovernment permitted to constitute Committees for
Social Security Pensions at Gram Panchayat Committee / Municipal Ward Committee and Mandal
Committee / Municipal level Committees shall continue be the respective Committees for
Janmabhoomi-Maavooru Programmealso.
2. Accordingly, Sri B Narayana Swamy S/o China Kotilingam, Muppavaram (V) in Kondepi (M) of
Prakasam district was unanimously elected as the agency for carrying out the subject workwith a
resolution on Dt. 16.5.2017 (enclosed as A-2) by the JBMV Committee members attended viz.
Sarpanch, Panchayat Secretary, Social Activists 1& 2, together with Self Help Group Members 1 &2 in
view ofthe prevailing circumstances.
3. Pursuant to the provisions incorporated there in the Para 49 of AP PWD Department Code(enclosed
as A-3) 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 was submitted to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Podili as
Assistant Executive Engineer, B-Canal Section, Ongoletogether with the post designated as Mandal
Officer for implementation of Neeru-Chettu Programme vide Memo No. 10444/CAD.1/2014-16,
Dt. 18.2.2015 (enclosed as A-4) for entrustment of work to Sri B Narayana Swamy S/o China
 Kotilingam, Muppavaram (V) of Kondepi (M) in Prakasam District without bigotry.
Notwithstandingthe provisions forthcoming as above alleging the undersigned submitted estimate
without identification of work by the Mandal Team as per guidelines, which is irregular and violation
of Government norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines in execution of aforesaid work is iniquitousas if the
issue be thoroughly scrutinized by the benevolent authorities without bigotry.

DETAILED REPLIES TO ARTICLES OF CHARGE - I:

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:

1. 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-5) for “Construction of check
dam across NallaVagu near Muppavaram(V) of Kondepi (M) in Prakasam District” for Rs. 9.50
Lakhs; the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole accorded Technical sanction to the
estimate for Rs. 9,50,000/- vide DR No. 103/2017-18 on Dt. 17.5.2017(enclosed as A-6) and
concluded Agreement with Sri B Narayana Swamy consequent to resolution furnished by the JBMV
Committee for Gram Panchayat on Dt. 16.5.2017 vide Div. Agt. No. 426Dn/2017-18for Rs. 8,77,641/-
on Dt. 9.6.2017(enclosed as A-7) allowing the working period as 90 days.
2. In pursuance to the instructions issued by the Government from time to time for completion of works
taken up under Neeru-Chettu the work “Construction of check dam across Nalla Vagu near
Muppavaram (V) of Kondepi (M) in Prakasam District” was carried out simultaneously along with ….
No. of works (enclosed as A-8)for which administrative sanction was accorded by the District
Collector during 2017-18(inclusive of subject work)without deprive off the confidence and fervor duly
ascertaining cooperation of agency encompass with enthusiastic villagers to complete the worksas most
primitive without compromisation in qualityso as to keep the status of Water Resources Department
unblemished.
3. Measurements were taken soon after completion of item wise work in presence of agency and recorded
therein Measurement Book. LS-I and Final Bill was preferred and submitted to the Deputy Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Podili(enclosed as A-9) for taking further action as per the
instructions provided therein the GO Rt No 187, Dt. 19.4.2017(enclosed as A-10)in correlation with
Establishment of Monitoring Cell, Establishment of Web-Portal and Quality Control authorities
forissue of Quality Control Certificate on thorough verification of each and every work taken up in
order to arrange payment for which Administrative sanction accorded during 2016-17 and 2017-18.
4. On thorough satisfaction of the items of workscompleted therein the Agreement, the Deputy Executive
Engineer, QC Sub Division, Ongole issued Quality Control Certificate on Dt. 19.9.2018 (enclosed as
A-11)in accordance with 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 to LS 1 st and Part Bill for Rs. 8,77,641/- and found satisfactory
based on the field tests carried out at random” consequent to satisfaction of the test reports of core
specimen extracted with Grade of Cement Concrete M 10 of the check dam and testing done inSS
Technologies, Ongole on Dt. 14.9.2018 (enclosed as A-12).
 5. On thorough study of the Test Reports affirmed by the KDM ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
towards core specimen extracted / received as on Dt. 4.2.2020 and tested on Dt. 6.3.2020, i.e. after
lapse of 31 days without assertion of any sort of revelations for failure of core specimen No. C-
153(enclosed as A-13) and certification of the test reports clearly emerge to be wary in view of
exclusions treated as granted by the Vigilance and Enforcement authorities compel to place the
observations before the benevolent authorities to rebut the test reports by the undersigned in view of
total disregard for implementation of rules / instructions / guidelines mandated provided therein the AP
PWD Code, GOs, IS Codes etc. for strict adherence enunciated as under:
a) The instructions for conducting quality audit as if engaged the external agencies as “the quality
control tests shall be carried out as per the standard procedures in the presence of
Construction and Quality Control Engineers and the contractor who is executing the work”
in pursuance to the provisions incorporated therein the GO Ms No. 94, I&CAD (PWW) Dept., Dt.
1.7.2003 (enclosed as A-14) were completely abated by the KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.
deliberately together with Vigilance & Enforcement authorities evince mistrustful actattached with
prejudice.
b) Keeping In view of the precedent issues towards difference of opinion amongst the Construction
Staff, Quality Control Wing and 3 Rd QC Agency in certification of quality of work, further
instructions / guide lines were issued by the Engineer in Chief (Irrigation) vide Circular No.
DCE.I/OT MP/AEE/29384/2005-3, Dt. 15.6.20016 (enclosed as A-15) as “it is to ensure that at
least 10% of the tests shall be got done at APERL / NITs or in the Colleges run by
Government or Universities or Other reputed institutes like NCCMB, Hyderabad having
ISO certificate for carrying out the tests”were also violated by the Vigilance and Enforcement
authoritieswithout uncertaintyseems to be iniquitous in performing duties.
The KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. together with Vigilance and Enforcement authorities resorted to
series of infringements enunciated as under in strict implementation of the provisions incorporated therein the IS
Codes viz. IS: 1199-1959, IS: 516-1959, IS: 2500.2.1965, SP 23-1982, SP 24-1983 and IS: 456-2000 for
establishing irrefutable results and further liable for expulsion of the undersigned deputed exclusively for
watching the process of testing in close, confer that they adopted unscientific slant caused for failure of Core
Specimens C-153 to rebut the Test Reports by the undersigned because of exemptions confer as granted without
revelations there for.
6. IS: 1199-1959 (Reaffirmed in 1999) – Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete (enclosed as A-
16) towards under Clause 4. SECURING PREPARING TEST SPECICMENS FROM HARDENED
CONCRETE:
a. Provision made under Precautions as “the clause specifies the procedure for securing and
preparing test specimens from hardened concrete in structures and pavements. A specimen to
be test for strength shall not be removed from the structure until the concrete has become hard
enough to permit its removal without disturbing the bond between the mortar and the coarse
aggregate. Normally the concrete shall be 14 days old before specimens are removed.
Specimens that show abnormal defects or that have been damaged in removal shall not
be used”.
 b. Provision made under Core Specimens as “A core specimen for the determination of
pavement thickness shall have a diameter of at least 10 cm. A core specimen for the
determination of compressive strength shall be a diameter of least three times the
maximum nominal size of the coarse aggregate (i.e. 40 mm) used in the concrete and in
no case shall the diameter of the specimen be less than twice the maximum normal size of the
coarse aggregate. The length of the specimen when capped shall be as nearly as practicable
twice its diameter”.
c. Provision made under Mean Diameter as “the mean diameter shall be determined to the
nearest millimeter from three pairs of measurements. The two measurements in each pair
shall be taken at right angles to each other, one pair being taken at the middle of the core and
the other pairs at the quarter points of the depth. The mean of the six readings shall be taken
as the diameter”.
7. IS: 516-1959 – Method of tests for strength of concrete (enclosed as A-17):
a. Capping Specimens in accordance with the IS: 516-1959 as “the ends of the specimen shall
be capped before testing. The material used for the capping shall be such that its
compressive strength is greater than that of the concrete in the core. Caps shall be made as
thin as practicable and shall not flow or fracture before the concrete fails when the specimen is
tested. The capped surfaces shall be at right angles to the axis of the specimen and shall
not depart from a plane by more than 0.05 mm”.
b. In accordance with the provisions contemplated therein IS: 516-1959 for Securing and
Preparing specimens of hardened concrete for compression test as “this clause deals with the
procedure for securing and preparing compression test specimens obtained from hardened
concrete after the concrete has been laid in position and the test specimens shall be procured
from hardened concrete according to the method described in clause 4 of IS: 1199-
1959.Cores to be tested for compression strength shall have ends that are reasonably
even, perpendicular to the axis and of the same diameter as the body of the specimen. A
core which before capping has a maximum height of less than 95 percent of the diameter
or after capping a height less than its diameter shall not be used”.
c. In accordance with the provisions contained therein the IS: 516-1959 as “After checking for
irregularities, the core shall be placed in water at a temperate of 24 o to 30o C for 48
hours before testing. The overall height of the specimens with capping shall be measured
to the nearest millimeter”.
d. The description of testing machine with its performance in accordance with IS: 516-1959 as
“the testing machine may be of any reliable type of sufficient capacity for the tests and
capable of applying the load at the rate specified with the permissible error shall be not
greater than ± 2 percent of the maximum load. The testing machine shall be equipped with
two steel bearing platens with hardened faces. One of the platens (preferably the one that
normally will bear on the upper surface of the specimen) shall be fitted with a ball seating in
the form of a potion of a sphere, the centre of which coincides with the central point of the
face of the platen. The other compression platen shall be plain rigid bearing block. The
bearing faces of the platens, when new, shall not depart from a plane by more 0.01 mm at any
 point and they shall be maintained with a permission variation limit of 0.02 mm. The movable
portion of the spherically seated compression platen shall be on the spherical seat but the
design shall be such that the bearing face can be rotated freely and tilted through small angles
in any direction”.
e. Age at Test in accordance with IS: 516-1959 as “tests shall be made at recognized ages of
the test specimens, the most usual being 7 and 28 days. Ages of 1 week and one year are
recommended if tests at greater ages are required. Where it may be necessary to obtain the
early strengths, tests may be made at the ages of 24 hours ± ½ hour and 72 hours ± 2 hours.
The ages shall be calculated from the time of addition of water to the dry ingredients.”
f. Number of Specimens in accordance with the IS 516-1959 as “at least three specimens,
preferably from different batches shall be made for testing at each selected age” with
specific provisions enunciated under NOTE as “when a full investigation is being carried
out, it is advisable for three separate batches to be made for each given variable. An
equal number of specimens for each variable should be made”.
g. Procedure in accordance with IS: 516-1959 clearly enunciate that the “Specimens stored in
water shall be tested immediately on removal from the water and while they are still in
the wet condition. Surface water and grit shall be wiped off the specimens and any
projecting fins removed. Specimens when received dry shall be kept in water for 24
hours before they are taken for testing. The dimensions of the specimens to the nearest
0.2 mm and their weight shall be noted before testing”.
h. Placing the specimen in the testing machine in accordance with IS:516-1959 as “the bearing
surfaces of the testing machine shall be wiped clean and any loose sand or other material
removed from the surfaces of the specimen which are to be in contact with the compression
platens. In the case of cubes, the specimen shall be placed in the machine in such a manner
that the load shall be applied to opposite sides of the cubes as cast, that is, not to the top and
bottom. The axis of the specimen shall be carefully aligned with the centre of thrust of the
spherically seated platen. No packing shall be used between the test specimens and the
steel platen of the testing machine. As the spherically seated block is brought to bear on
the specimen, the movable portion shall be rotated gently by hand so that uniform
seating may be obtained. The load shall be applied without shock and increased
continuously at a rate of approximately 140 kg/sq cm/min until the resistance of the
specimen to the increasing load breaks down and no greater load can be sustained. The
maximum load applied to the specimen shall then be recorded the appearance of the
concrete and any unusual features in the type of failure shall be noted”.
i. Calculation in accordance with IS: 516-1959 as “the measured compressed strength of the
specimen shall be calculated by dividing the maximum load applied to the specimen during
the test by the cross-sectional area, calculated from the mean dimensions of the section (see
also 4.5.1 of IS: 1199-1959) and shall be expressed to the nearest kg per sq cm. average of
three values shall be taken as the representative of the batch provided the individual
variation is not more than ±15 percent of the average. OTHERWISE REPEAT TESTS
SHALL BE MADE”.
 j. In accordance with IS: 516-1959 as “height / diameter ratio of specimen after capping
shall be obtained from the curve. The product of this correction factor and the measured
compressive strength shall be known as the corrected compressive strength, this being
the equivalent strength of a cylinder having a height / diameter ratio of two. The
equivalent cube strength of the concrete shall be determined by multiplying the
corrected cylinder strength by 5/4”.
k. Report in accordance with IS: 516-1959 as the following information shall be included in the
report on each test specimen:
1. Identification mark
2. Date of test
3. Age of specimen
4. Curing conditions including date of manufacture of specimen in the field
5. Weight of specimen
6. Dimensions of the specimen
7. Cross sectional area
8. Maximum load
9. Compressive strength and
10.Appearance of fractured faces of concrete and types of fracture, if there are
unusual.
8. Provisions incorporated therein the IS: 2500.2.1965 - Sampling Inspection Procedures – Inspection by
variables for percent defective (enclosed as A-18).
CONSIDERATION FOR THE CHOICE BETWEEN THE ATTRIBUTES AND VARIABLES
INSPECTION:
a. When a characteristic of an item is amenable to both attributes and variables types of
inspection, as is the case when a dimension can be either gauged or measured, the
following considerations would help in choosing the appropriate type of inspection.
b. For any desired degree of protection, lesser number of items have to be inspected for
variables inspection than for attributes inspection in order to determine the acceptability
(or otherwise) of a lot. In other words, for the samples of the same size, inspection by
variables gives a smaller risk of accepting lots of unacceptable quality than inspection by
attributes. The variables plans would be, therefore, ordinarily more useful and economical in
those cases where destructive or costly testing is involved.
c. The measurement of an item under the variables inspection gives much more
information about the quality of the item than the attributes inspection. Thus a container
of copper naphthenate may show the copper content as 10.0 percent against the specification
requirement of 8.5 percent minimum. In case of attributes plans the container would be simply
classified as satisfactory with respect to the copper content but the fact that the observed value
is 1.5 percent higher than the specified minimum value will not be utilized as such. The
variables plans, on the other hand, use this additional information in their acceptance criteria
which are based on the mean and the variation of the test results. The variables inspection
would, therefore, yield more information about the quality of the lot than attributes inspection.
d. Inspection by attributes may to some extent be subjective in the sense that an item
classified as defective by one inspector may be classified as non-defective by another or
 by the same at a later time. This is particularly so in the case of visual inspection and items
of borderline quality.Inspection by variables, on the other hand, would require actual
measurement of the item quality and is, therefore, more objective and minimizes the
possibilities of inspection bias and error.
e. Variables plans are based on the assumption that the distribution of the quality
characteristic is normal. Hence it is important that these plans are not used
indiscriminately. In case the assumption of normality is in doubt, it is advisable to obtain the
guidance of a competent statistician to ascertain the feasibility of application of these plans.
9. Provisions incorporated therein the SP: 23-1982 – Handbook on Concrete mixes (enclosed as A-19):
Analysis of hardened concrete: “Analysis of cement content in hardened concrete is frequently
required, whenever concrete is frequently required, whenever concrete has either exhibited low
strength or any other inadequate performance. Although different methods like microscopic,
petrographi8c and even nucleonic are available and new methods are being developed only chemical
methods are recognized in the national standards of most countries including IS: 1199-1959.In all
methods of analysis of hardened concrete, sample selection play an important part, since only a small
quantity goes in the analysis, it should be representative of the concrete in question a possible. For this
reason, several of 4 – 5 Kg is taken as the representative sample is obtained by repeated
quartering. Samples of cement and aggregate used in the constructions if available aid in the
analysis and yield more accurate results”.
10. Provisions incorporated therein the SP: 24-1983 – Explanatory Handbook on Indian Standard Code of
Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete (enclosed as A-20) as “the sample should be of at least
0.02 m3 in volume and it should be made by collecting the concrete from three to five intervals or
locations”.
11. Provisions incorporated therein the IS: 456-2000 – Plain and Reinforced concrete – Code of Practice
(enclosed as A-21):
a. Concrete of each grade shall be assessed separately in accordance with the IS:456-2000 as
“Concrete is liable to be rejected if it is porous or honeycombed, its placing has been
interrupted without providing a proper construction joint, the reinforcement has been
displaced beyond the tolerances specified or construction tolerance have not been met.
However, the hardened concrete may be accepted after carrying out suitable remedial
measures to the satisfaction of the Engineer in Charge.”
b. In accordance with the provisions contemplated therein the IS: 456-2000 “in case the core
test results do not satisfy the requirements load test may be resorted to”.
CONCLUSION: On thorough study of the information forthcoming from the relevant documents and
on detailed analysis, it clearly envisage that the KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. extracted core samples 3 No
(C-148, C-149 AND C-153) in respect of Guide Walls and another 3 No (C-151, 152 and C-150) of Apron
Cement Concrete in M 10 Grade. Out of 6 Core Specimen the test result of C-153 in respect of Guide wall is
enunciated as failed towards its equivalent cube compressive strength duly stated as the Average Equivalent
cube compressive strength of C-148, C-149 and C-153 as 12.43 in N/mm 2and conferred as “Satisfied” under
column “Remarks” as in the Vigilance Report No. 10 Dt. 4.9.2020 together with enclosures to GO cited in the
reference is not convincing. The reasons for creation of such unwarranted discrepancies shall be identified
along with personnel responsible and action should be initiated against such disgruntled personnel to set forth as
precedence bythe benevolent authorities otherwise remain as a scar on the status of the department.
Dumping of extracted core specimen into the truck and traversing in potholed roads for collection of
core samples from other works in the mandal liable for cracks / damages and stocking in unscientific manner by
the KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Guntur before testing core specimen on Dt. 6.3.2020 in TOTAL DRY
CONDITION(i.e. after lapse of 31 days from the date of extraction) without carrying out any rectifications
suggested therein the IS Codes and any further revelations towards security measures to beimplemented during
the entire 31 days and denial for witness the testing process by the undersigned explore the
innatestancedeveloped for not obliging thesuggestions of the undersigned for implementation of provisions
incorporated therein the GOs/IS Codes.
It clearly envisage the negligent attitude of KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd together with Vigilance
and Enforcement authorities for not adhering the specific instructions provided therein the GO Ms NO. 94, Dt.
1.7.2003 as “the external agency should inform the head of the department and should conduct quality control
tests as per the standard procedures in the presence of Construction and Quality Control Engineers and the
Contractor who is executing the work” in addition to the instructions communicated by the Engineer in Chief
(Irrigation) vide Circular No. DCE-I/OT MP/AEE/29384/2005-3, Dt. 15.6.2003as”it is being noticed that the
EPC agency is conducting the tests in his laboratory or in some private laboratories. It is to be ensured that at
least 10% of tests shall be got done at APERL / NITs or in the Colleges run by Government or Universities or
other reputed institutes like NCCMB, Hyderabad having ISO Certificate for carrying out tests” shall be
determined to confirm their trustworthiness.
The stance of the KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. together with Vigilance and Enforcement
authoritiesfor blemish the undersigned determined together with the reasons for denying permission towitness
the status of core specimen before and during testing in accordance with the specific instructions contemplated
therein the GO Ms No. 94, Dt. 1.7.2003 confer that theKDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. together with Vigilance
and Enforcement authorities working with camouflage.
In this connection it is strappingly state that the subject workwas carried out in accordance with the
standard specifications provided therein the Agreement with the cooperation extended by some of the
enthusiastic villagers having knowledge of concrete technology throughout the working period enhanced my
confidence and capacity to executethe workliable for non receipt of anysort of adverse comments from the
public or higher authorities.
DETAILED REPLIES TO ARTICLES OF CHARGE - II:
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:

12. Memo No. 10444/CAD.1/2014-16, Dt. 18.2.2015 (enclosed as A-22) 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.
13. It may not be appropriate to return the proposals received from the villagers of Muppavaram
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” reasoned for submission of 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 discrimination for effective implementation of
Neeru-Chettu programme within the Division not to intend to deprive off the villagers aspirant for
construction of Check dam.
14. The resolution obtained with the majority of members attended the meeting for resolving the issue
connected with entrustment of work to Sri B Narayana Swamy as per 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
which will act as Committee for Janmabhoomi-Maa Vooru Programme.
15. The instructions of Government vide GO Rt No. 531, Water Resources (CAD) Department, Dt.
14.8.2015 (enclosed as A-23) 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.
16. Keeping in view of the instructions contained therein the Memo No. 10444/CAD.I/2015.190, Dt.
19.5.2016 (enclosed as A-24) of Water Resources Department accorded permission for construction of
check dams across 1st and 2nd order streams with the following guidelines.
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. The District Water Resources Officers are permitted to accord hydrological clearance for check
dams with a capacity of upto 1 M Cft.
d. 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.
17. ENTRUSTMENT: Instructions of Government vide GO Ms No 46, I&CAD Dept.,
Dt. 24.2.2017 (enclosed as A-25) 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.
e. 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.
 18. Specific instructions communicated by the Government vide GO Rt No 187, Water Resources (CAD)
Department, Dt. 19.4.2017 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”;
19. 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 queries.
20. In pursuance to the provisions imminent as above, the resolution for carrying out the subject work was
unanimously accepted by the majority of members belongs to JBMV Committee of Muppavaram (V)
to entrust the work by Sri B Narayana Swamy S/o China Kotilingam, Muppavaram (V) of Kondepi (M)
in Prakasam District invited for concluding agreement not to deprive the aspiration of the villagers and
not to remain as a dissenterfor Neeru-Chettu Programme.
CONCLUSION: Consequent to the provisions incorporated therein the GOs, Memos etc. referred as
aboveand in accordance with the provisions incorporated therein the AP PWD Department Code submitted the
estimate for ‘Construction of check dam across Nalla Vagu near Muppavaram (V) of Kondepi (M) in Prakasam
district’ with true spirit accomplishing the guidelines provided therein the GO Ms No 46, I&CAD Dept.,
Dt. 24.2.2017 together with the instructions contemplated therein the GO Rt No. 531, Water Resources (CAD)
Department, Dt. 14.8.2015 as the ‘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 exhibiting any substantiative
evidences shall be ignored and treated as unsupported,
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 NODAL OFFICER FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEERU-CHETTU PROGRAMME for effective implementation partingwith
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 civil works with the directions of the
undersigned together with higher authorities of the department 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 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.Hence
alleging the undersigned as responsible for recommendation of payment for the substandard quality of cement
concrete work in construction of check dam shall be treated as untenable as per the evidences put forth as above.
 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 PWD
Code, GOs, Memos 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 Assistant Executive Engineer of Irrigation Sub Division, Podili under prevalence of jeopardy
condition with fearless, discreetly, sincerely and honestly in completion of works to achieve targets fixed by the
Government.
In view of the information furnished as above to prove myself not guilty and implying Rule 3 of APCS
(Conduct) Rule 3 may not be reasonable requesting for orders of abatement of further action in the matter.
For which act of kindness, I shall be ever grateful to you Sir,
Encl: Annexure
Yours faithfully,

(MJ Ravi Kumar)

The then Assistant Executive Engineer,
B-Canal Section, Ongole,
Irrigation Sub Division, Podili,
Prakasam District.
AND
Present Assistant Executive Engineer,
Section, Ongole,
Irrigation Sub Division, Podili,
Prakasam District.

Copy submitted to the Engineer in Chief (Admn), Currency Nagar, Vijayawada in response to the Endt. No.
RC/ENC/K/AEE.1/22051608/2022/NC/PKM/W40, Dt. 2.6.2022 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 GO Rt No 22, Planning (VII) Department, Dt. 9.10.2014
Copy of JBMV Committee resolution (Dt. 5.3.2018) for entrusting the work to
2
carried out by Sri B Venkateswarlu
3 Extract of Para 49 of AP PWD Code.
4 Govt. Memo. No. 10444/CAD.1/2014-16. Dt. 18.2.2015
5 Copy of Administrative Approval No Rc DB/D1/W/483, Dt. 19.10.2017
6 Copy of Sanctioned Estimate vide DR No. 867/2017-18
7 Copy of Agt. No. 783Dn/2017-18
List of works executed for which Administrative Approval accorded by the
8
District Collector during 2017-18

9 Copy of LS- I & Final Bill

10 Extract of GO Rt No 187, Dt.19.4.2017
Copy of Quality Control Certificate issued by the DEE, I&QC Sub Division,
11
Ongole
Copy of Test Reports of core specimens extracted and tested by Balaji Civil
12
Engineering Laboratory, Ongole under Quality Control Authorities
Copy of Test Reports of core specimens Dt. 7.3.2020 extracted and tested by
13
M/s KDM Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Guntur
14 GO Ms No 94, Dt. 1.7.2003
Engineer in Chief (Irrigation) Circular No. DCE-I/OT MP/AEE/29384/2005-3,
15
Dt. 15.6.2006
Extract of IS: 1199-1959 (Reaffirmed in 1999) – Methods of sampling and
16
analysis of concrete
17 Extract of IS: 516-1959 – Method of tests for strength of concrete
Extract of IS: 2500.2.1965 - Sampling inspection procedures (Part-II Inspection
18
by Variables for percent defective)
19 Extract of SP 23-1982 – Handbook on concrete mixes
Extract of SP 24-1983 – Explanatory handbook on Indian Standard Code of
20
practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete.
21 Extract of IS 456-2000 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice
22 Memo No. 10444/CAD.1/2014-16, Dt. 18.2.2015
GO Rt No. 531, Water Resources (CAD) Department, Dt.
23
14.8.2015
24 Memo No. 10444/CAD.I/2015.190, Dt. 19.5.2016
25 GO Ms No 46, I&CAD Dept., Dt. 24.2.2017