Latest news with #PreventionofCorruptionActof1988
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Medigadda cracks: Vigilance panel indicts L&T, 30 irrigation officials; recommends action
1 2 Hyderabad: The Telangana Vigilance Commission (TVC) has recommended criminal and departmental action against construction giant L&T Precision Engineering and Systems (PES) and over 30 top irrigation officials—both serving and retired—for their alleged roles in the structural collapse of block 7 of the Medigadda barrage, which is part of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme (KLIS). The charges include corruption, criminal conspiracy, and gross dereliction of duty, with officials accused of blindly approving flawed designs and allowing substandard execution, resulting in massive public money loss. In a scathing report, the TVC called for stringent action under various legal provisions, including the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, Dam Safety Act of 2021, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act of 1984. Criminal charges under IPC sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 336 (endangering life), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 418 (cheating), 423 (dishonest execution of documents), and 426 (mischief) have also been recommended. The commission held L&T PES squarely responsible for engineering failures that led to the collapse of the piers. It pointed out that the contractor falsely claimed completion of barrage works despite not fulfilling key requirements outlined in the supplemental agreement. "The agency reportedly deviated from its approved method for constructing secant piles, triggering a 'piping action' under the raft foundation—leading to cavities and the eventual sinking of block 7," the TVC said in its report. The commission also recommended recovery of the full cost of replacing the collapsed block from the contractor. Once touted as former chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao's flagship irrigation initiative and a symbol of Telangana's engineering ambition, the KLIS allegedly became a fodder for political parties in the run-up to 2023 assembly elections. Executed at a cost of over ₹1.2 lakh crore, the project has faced mounting criticism for inflated costs, rushed clearances, and structural failures. Chief minister A Revanth Reddy rode to power on a wave of public anger, promising a thorough probe into the Kaleshwaram project, which he branded as the "biggest irrigation scam in independent India. " Top officials under fire Seventeen senior irrigation officials were directly blamed for the collapse. Among them are C Muralidhar, former engineer-in-chief (ENC), who served for nearly eight years; Bhupathi Raju Nagendra Rao, ENC (operations and maintenance); T Srinivas, chief engineer, Central Designs Organisation (CDO); V Phanibhushan Sharma, director of works and accounts; Mohammed Ajmal Khan, deputy CE, ENC office; N Venkateshwarlu, retired ENC, Kaleshwaram project; Kotte Sudhakar Reddy, CE, Ramagundam circle (in-charge); engineers from Mahadevpur division, including B Venkata Ramana Reddy, Sardar Omkar Singh, and Ch Thirupathi Rao; B Venkateshwarlu, retired CE, quality control division; quality control engineers V Ajaya Kumar, PA Venkata Krishna, and M Raghu Ram; A Narender Reddy, retired ENC; and H Basavaraj of CDO. Seven retired senior officers—Muralidhar, N Venkateshwarlu, G Hari Hara Chary, B Venkateshwarlu, Ch Gangadhar, Ajaya Kumar, and Narender Reddy—will face inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. In addition to the core group, 33 other engineers will face departmental penalties for various lapses in design, execution, and supervision. The report also targets principal secretaries and their subordinate staff in the irrigation department who served between 2015 and the time of the collapse in Oct 2023 and recommended action against them. It found that senior bureaucrats "blindly approved" critical project proposals without examining their technical merits, despite repeated red flags. The TVC has advised that disciplinary actions proceed simultaneously, even if police investigations or court proceedings are still underway. The commission's recommendations come even as the Justice (Retd) PC Ghose one-man Commission of Inquiry continues its probe into the irregularities. Unedited GFX TVC's other recommendations and lapses by L&T As per the agreement it was supposed to follow agreement conditions during the course of execution of works. To cross check the estimate provisions with respect to the agreement conditions such as dewatering clause. The chief engineer of Medigadda barrage violated the provisions of various GOs, which was issued for approving deviations up to 15% over the above the original administrative approvals under intimation to the govt. But the CE failed to intimate the govt.
The Hindu
28-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court reverses discharge of T.N. Minister I. Periyasamy from disproportionate assets case
The Madras High Court on Monday (April 28, 2025) reversed the discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his wife P. Suseela, and two sons P. Prabhu and P. Senthilkumar from a 2012 disproportionate assets case, and directed them to face trial. Justice P. Velmurugan allowed a batch of four criminal revision petitions filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in 2018 and directed a special court for corruption cases in Dindigul to frame charges against the accused and conduct trial on a day-to-day basis. Since the family had been accused of accumulating wealth, disproportionate to known sources of income, between 2006 and 2010, when Mr. Periyasamy served as Minister for Revenue and Prisons, the judge ordered completion of trial within six months. The DVAC wing in Dindigul had registered the First Information Report (FIR) against the Minister and his family members on March 8, 2012, and conducted searches on their premises before filing a chargesheet before the Dindigul Chief Judicial Magistrate's court. According to the chargesheet, the Minister and his family members were in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of ₹2.01 crore and hence, they had committed offences under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. The investigating agency claimed that the assets had been accumulated during the check period between May 13, 2006, and March 31, 2010. However, the CJM discharged all the four accused, leading to the present revision petitions filed by the DVAC in 2018.
The Hindu
23-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Madras High Court reverses discharge of T.N. Minister Duraimurugan from 2002 disproportionate assets case
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (April 23, 2025) allowed a batch of five criminal revision petitions filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in 2013 against the 2007 discharge of Water Resources Minister Duraimurugan and his family members from a disproportionate assets case booked in 2002 for having allegedly amassed the wealth between 1996 and 2001. Justice P. Velmurugan reversed the discharge order passed by a special court in Vellore on February 23, 2007 and ordered that the Minister, his wife D. Santhakumari, brother Durai Singaram, son D.M. Kathir Anand (now a Member of Parliament representing Vellore constituency in the Lok Sabha) and daughter-in-law K. Sangeetha must necessarily face trial in the corruption case. The judge directed the trial court to proceed with the process of framing charges against the accused and complete the trial within six months, by conducting the proceedings on a day to day basis, since the check period was between 1996 and 2001. Mr. Duraimurugan, 86, now serving as the general secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and holding the second position in the present Cabinet led by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, had served as Minister for Public Works Department (PWD) in former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi's Cabinet between 1996 and 2001 when the offence of amassing wealth, disproportionate to known sources of income, was allegedly committed. After the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) led by its then leader J. Jayalalithaa returned to power in Tamil Nadu in 2001, the DVAC had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against him on corruption charges and conducted raids at his residence in Chennai and several other places linked to him, as well as his family members, in October 2002. However, the special court in 2007 discharged the Minister and his family members from the case booked under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. The DVAC had preferred the present criminal revision cases in 2013, challenging the discharge orders, along with an application to condone the long delay in doing so. The High Court on February 27, 2013 condoned the delay of 1,789 days in preferring the revision by taking into account that the DMK was in power in the State between 2006 and 2011 and therefore, the revision pleas could not be filed on time. Early this year, Justice Velmurugan, took up the revision petitions for final hearing and reserved his verdict after hearing elaborate arguments advanced by the senior counsel representing the Minister and his family members as well as Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran for the DVAC.
The Hindu
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
TASMAC Vs ED case: Madras High Court to deliver verdict on April 23
The Madras High Court on Monday (April 21, 2025) decided to pronounce its judgment on Wednesday (April 23, 2025) on a batch of three writ petitions — one filed by the Tamil Nadu government and two by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) — to declare as illegal the search and seizure operation carried out by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) at the TASMAC headquarters in Chennai between March 6 and 8, 2025. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar reserved their verdict after hearing elaborate arguments advanced by Advocate General P.S. Raman for the State government, senior counsel Vikas Singh and Vikram Choudhary for TASMAC, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, assisted by ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh, for the prosecution. The A-G had expressed serious concerns about the ED choosing to raid the headquarters of a State-owned corporation on the basis of stray First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in the last few years against a few lower level staff, such as district managers and depot managers, on the charge of corruption. He said that if this practice of the central agency was allowed unchecked, then it would do the same with other State-owned undertakings, such as Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN) and so on, at the will and pleasure of the ED officials. They would then end up scouting for materials to implicate higher authorities of such institutions, thereby directly challenging the federal character of the country. He also accused the ED officials of indulging in human rights violations by detaining even the women staff of TASMAC headquarters beyond midnight, during the search and seizure operation that was carried out over a period of three days at a stretch. The A-G accused the ED of not having sought the assistance of the State government before embarking on such a raid. On the other hand, the ASG denied the allegations of human rights violations and claimed that the women staff were permitted to go home during night hours and were asked to report back to the office in the day. He also said that the search and seizure operation was conducted on the basis of as many as 46 FIRs registered by the DVAC under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. Mr. Ramesh told the court that Tamil Nadu was the only State that had not appointed a nodal officer to assist the ED, as required under Section 50 of PMLA, in finding out the predicate offences. He also stated that the State government and Tamil Nadu Director General of Police had not responded, despite multiple communications sent to them seeking assistance in probing money laundering offences.
