F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS.

II

DFA/Confidential
By Speed Post

F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS. II
Government of India
Ministry of Urban Development
(AV Unit)
*****
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011
Dated: - September, 2022

ORDER
Whereas, as per CVC OM No. 017/W&H/049/353832 dated 10.08.2017,
disciplinary proceedings under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 were
initiated against Shri N.R. Katwale, Executive Engineer (C), CPWD {hereinafter
referred to as the Charged Officer (CO)}, vide Charge Memorandum No. 10/V-
14/(A-308)/2015-VS-I dated 23.08.2017, and the CO was asked to submit his
statement of defence for the following Articles of Charge:-
Shri. N.R. Katwale, Executive Engineer (C), Retd., while functioning as
Executive Engineer (C), Nagpur Central Division-II, CPWD, Nagpur from
04.05.2010 to 27.06.2013 committed certain irregularities while getting the
following three works executed. The details are as under: -
1. Work No.1: Special repair to other Building at AG, Bunglow No. 15/1
Starkey Town, Sadar, Nagpur. SH: Renovation of roofing, plinth
protection/repair to toilet etc.

ARTICLE-1
Shri N.R. Katwale, Executive Engineer, being Engineer-in-charge of the
work, was responsible for approving the sample of materials after ensuring its
quality as per the standard stipulated in work order No. 30/EE/NCD-II/2012-13.
He allowed the use of Pre-coated Galvanized Iron Profile sheet Ridge/flashing
under item No. 6.1 & 6.2 without ensuring the quality of sheets either through
documentary evidences or getting it tested from laboratory of repute. Shri N.R.
Katawale, Executive Engineer (C) is thus found to be responsible for not
ensuring the quality of material used in the work, in contravention of provisions
of section 53.4 and 53.7 (i) of CPWD Manual – 2012.
2. Work No. 2: Renovation of roofing of middle building and Annexe building
at old AG campus at civil lines, Nagpur executed under agreement No.
15/EE/NCD-II/2011-12.
ARTICLE – 2
Shri N. R. Katwale, being Executive Engineer-in-charge of the work,
was responsible for approving the sample of materials to be used in the work
after ensuring that the quality of materials to be used in the work was as per
standard stipulated in the agreement. He allowed the use of Pre-coated

1|Page
 F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS. II

Galvanized Iron Profile sheet without ensuring the quality of sheets either
through purchase voucher or getting it tested from the laboratory of repute. Shri.
N. R. Katwale Executive Engineer (C) allowed the use of sub-standard material
in the work, in contravention of section 53.4, 53.7 (i) and 5.2.3 (1) of CPWD
Works Manual – 2012.
Shri. N. R. Katwale also made the payment of Rs. 7,03,811/- for the
execution of the said work, which used substandard material, thus causing loss
to the Government.
3. Work No. 3: Comprehensive renovation of Aayakar Bhawan at Civil lines,
Nagpur executed under agreement No. 02/EE/NCD-II/2011-12.
ARTICLE – 3
Shri N. R. Katwale, being Executive Engineer-in-charge of the work,
was responsible for approving the sample of materials to be used in the work as
per standard stipulated in the agreement. He allowed the use of pre-coated
galvanized iron profile sheet without ensuring quality of sheets either through
purchase vouchers or getting it tested from the laboratory of repute. Shri. N. R.
Katwale Executive Engineer (C) allowed the use of substandard material in the
work, in contravention of section 53.4 and 53.7 (i) of CPWD Works Manual –
2012.
Shri. N. R. Katwale also made the payment of Rs. 1,47,798/- for the
execution of work, which used substandard material, thus causing loss to the
Government.
By committing the above lapses, the said Shri N. R. Katwale, the then
Executive Engineer (C), CPWD is found to have committed grave misconduct as
he failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited lack of devotion to duty
thereby contravening Rules 3(1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
And whereas, a Statement of Imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour in
support of the Articles of Charge, a list of documents by which and a list of
witnesses by whom, the Articles of Charge framed against the CO proposed to
be sustained, were also enclosed with the said Charge Memorandum as
Annexures-II, III and IV respectively.

On denial of the charges by Shri N.R. Katwale, EE(C) (Retd.) vide his letter
dated 05.10.2017, to inquire into the charges framed against the said Shri N.R.
Katwale, EE(C)/CO, Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO) were
appointed, vide order no. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS.II/AV.I dated 22.01.2018. The
Inquiring Authority submitted the report vide letter No.
VM/Inq/NRK/EE(C)RETD./2018/3-6 dated 06.02.2019, holding the
charges under Article-I, Article-II & Article III as ‘Partially Proved’. The
Disciplinary Authority was in agreement with the findings of IO and held the
Charges under Article- I, Article-II and Article-III as ‘Partially Proved’. The
Disagreement Note of DA was sent to CO along with copy of Inquiry Report
vide Memorandum No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS.II dated 24.05.2019. The CO
submitted his representation on IR as well as DA’s disagreement, vide letter
dated 03.07.2019.
2|Page
 F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS. II

And whereas, on careful consideration of the IO’s Report, CO’s submission

dated 03.07.2019 and other relevant aspects of the case, the DA tentatively held
the charges under Article- I, Article-II and Article-III as ‘Partially Proved’.
The DA also considered the proven misconduct of the C.O. as grave and
tentatively concluded to impose suitable penalty on the C.O. Accordingly, the
case records were submitted to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
for their statutory advice in the matter, vide letter No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-
VS.II dated 26.03.2021.

And whereas, The Commission (UPSC) tendered the advice, vide letter no.
3/453/2020-S.l dated 21.03.2022. The conclusive paras of UPSC are reproduced
as follows: -
4. The case records have been examined carefully by the Commission in
detail and their observations are as under:
4.1 The Commission note that the charges levelled against the CO are that
while functioning as Executive Engineer (C), Nagpur Central Division-II,
CPWD, Nagpur from 04.05.2010 to 27.06.2013 committed certain irregularities
while getting the following three works executed.
(a) Work No. 1: Special repair to other Building at AG, Bungalow No. 1511
Starkey Town Sadar Nagpur. SH: Renovation of roofing, plinth
protection/repair to toilet etc.
(b) Work No. 2: Renovation of roofing of middle building and Annex
building at old AG campus at civil lines, Nagpur executed under agreement No.
15/EE/NCD-II/2011-12.
(c) Work No. 3: Comprehensive renovation of Aaykar Bhawan at Civil
lines, Nagpur executed under agreement No. 02/EE/NCD-II/2011-12.
4.2 The Commission note that there are three Articles of Charge on the basis
of the above three works. All the three are inter-related and being discussed
together.
4.3 The Commission also note that in all the three Articles of Charges, CO is
held responsible for violation of provisions of Section 53.4 and 53.7(1) of
CPWD Manual, 2012. In addition to these two Sections, in Article-II, there is
an allegation of violation of Section 5.2.3 (1) of CPWD Manual, 2012 and
allegation of payment of Rs.7,03,811 for the execution of the said work which
used substandard material, thus causing loss to the Government. In Article-III,
there is an allegation of payment of Rs.1,47,798 for execution of work with
substandard material, thus causing loss to the Government. It is further alleged
that CO had violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4.4 The Commission observe that in so far as Section 53.4 of CPWD
Manual, 2012 is concerned, IO, vide his Report dated 06.02.2019, held this
Section as 'not proved' and DA has agreed with it. So far as the allegation of
3|Page
 F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS. II

loss to the Government Exchequer in Articles II and III is concerned, I0 held

this allegation as 'not proved' and DA has agreed to it. In so far as violation of
Rule 3(1(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 is concerned, IO held
this allegation as 'not proved ' and DA agreed to the findings of the IO. As such,
these components are not being discussed here.
4.5 The Commission observe that in so far as allegation of violation of
Section 53.7(1) of CPWD Manual, 2012 is concerned, it may be brought out
here that Section 53.7 of CPWD Works Manual 2012 deals with responsibilities
of the construction staff, Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer.
Section 53.7(i) stipulates that the broad responsibilities of the field staff and the
EE & SE are "to ensure that materials duly approved by the competent authority
are used in the work. Samples of various materials in respective type,
important/big works of power of SE and above shall be approved by
Superintending Engineer concerned and for works up to the power of EE. The
samples of various materials shall be approved by the Executive Engineer".
4.6 The Commission also observe that the CO, in his defence has contended
that to substantiate the violation of Para 53.7(i) of CPWD Work Manual, 2012,
the prosecution should have produced "Sample Approval Register" or some
documents which could reveal that sample approval register was not maintained
for the work. CO further contends that the burden of proof is upon the
Prosecution and that the CO has no duty to prove his innocence. CO further
contended that in the absence of Sample Approval Register or some documents,
the allegation is not proved. IO, in his report had agreed to the contention of the
CO that the Prosecution could not produce any documentary proof of non
approval of material and DA has agreed to the findings of the IO. CO further
contended that there is nothing on record to prove that he did not approve the
sample of material before use. IO had refuted the contention of the CO in his
Report stating that from the evidence placed before him, oral and written, that
the sample of profile sheets was not approved by the CO before using the same
for work and thus, the CO had violated Para 53.7(i) of the CPWD Manual,
2012. However, from the available records, it is quite clear that IO has not
given any details of the evidences placed before him, oral and written and even
DA is silent on this contention of the CO and has not furnished any details of the
evidences placed before IO, oral or written.
4.7 In view of the above, the Commission conclude that this component of
the charge that CO had violated Section 53.7(i) of the CPWD Manual, 2012 is
not proved.
4.8 The Commission further note that as regards the charge of violation of
Section 5.2.3 (1) of CPWD Manual, 2012 is concerned, it may be brought out
here that Section 5.2.3 is related to 'Responsibility for quality of work'. Section
5.2.3(1) stipulates that "The officer who records/test checks the measurements
for an item of work will be responsible for the quality, quantity and dimensional
accuracy of the work".

4|Page
 F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS. II

4.9 The Commission observe that CO had relied on the depositions of Shri
J.K. Mann (DW-1), the then AE and Shri K.S. Mahajan (DW-2), the then Junior
Engineer that the material was physically checked and verified with delivery
memo and Manufacturer 's Test Report. However, it may be brought out here
that DW-1 and DW-2 are co-accused in this case and penalty has already been
imposed on them. As such, their depositions cannot be relied upon. CO further
contended that there is no mandatory test for the pre-coated G.I. profile sheets
in CPWD specifications and, therefore, no test was got conducted or insisted by
the CO. To this contention of the CO, IO, vide his Report had stated that the
nomenclature of the item itself mentions about the mass of zinc coating and
other parameters are such that they cannot be ascertained without conducting a
test. CO has not been able to prove how he ascertained the zinc mass factor
without a lab test. In view of this, violation of 5.2.3(1) of CPWD Manual, 2012
by the CO stands proved.
4.10 In view of the above, the Commission conclude the Charges as partly
proved.
5. In the light of the observations and findings as discussed above and after
taking into account all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commission
consider that the ends of justice would be met in this case if the penalty of
withholding of 10% (ten per cent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible
to him for a period of 01 (one) year is imposed on the CO, Shri N.R. Katwale.
The admissible gratuity of the CO may be released, if not required to be
withheld otherwise. They advise accordingly.
And whereas, a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC was served to the CO
vide Memorandum No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS.II dated 30.03.2022 for his
representation thereon, if any. The CO has submitted his representation on the
UPSC advice vide letter dated 11.04.2022.
And whereas, the President has considered the contentions of CO submitted vide
representation dated 11.04.2022 in details and observed that the CO has not
produced any new fact/ evidence in support of his arguments, warranting
reconsideration.
Now therefore, the President has carefully considered the case as a whole
including the IR, CO’s representation on Disagreement Note and IR, the Advice
tendered by the UPSC, CO’s representation on the UPSC Advice and all other
facts and circumstances available on record. After considering the circumstances
in totality and on objective assessment of the entire case, the President, in
acceptance of the advice tendered by the UPSC, hereby conclude that the
Charges under Article-2 is ‘partly proved’ against the CO.

And now therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the President imposes the
penalty of “withholding of 10% (ten per cent) of the monthly pension
otherwise admissible to him for a period of 01 (one) year” on Shri N.R.
Katwale”. The said penalty shall be effective from the date of issue of this order.

By order and in the name of the President.

5|Page
 F. No. 1/97/D-IV/2017-VS. II

(K B Tripathi)
Under Secretary (AV.III)

To, Through
Shri N.R. Katwale The DG, CPWD (Mr. Arun
Executive Engineer (C), Kumar Chaturvedi, (CVO),
CPWD, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi -110011

Copy to: -

1. The Director General, CPWD (Mr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, C.V.O)

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. The enclosed copy of the order may be
delivered to Shri N.R. Katwale, Executive Engineer (C), CPWD and his
dated acknowledgment obtained and kept in records.
2. Shri B.D. Gajghate, Deputy Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi 110023
with reference to its OM No. 017/W&H/049-353832 dated 10.08.2017.
3. The Secretary Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur house,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110069 w.r.t. letter no. F. 3/453/2020-S.l
dated 21.03.2022.
4. The DDG (Pers.) Directorate General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi-110011.
5. New Mumbai Central Division, CPWD ,7th Floor, A-I Wing C.G.O.
Complex, CBD, Belapur, Mumbai, Maharastra, 400614 for
implementation of the order under intimation to Vigilance Unit, CPWD.
The sealed envelope may be delivered to Shri N.R. Katwale, EE(Civil)
(Retd.) and his dated acknowledgement sent to Vigilance Unit, CPWD
for record.
6. Shri N.R. Katwale, EE(Civil)(Retd.) Plot No. 88, Bhausahe Survey
Nagar, Jaitala Road, Nagpur-440022 (E-mail: nrkatwale55@gmail.com).
7. Guard file.

Under Secretary to the Government of India

6|Page