UT vigilance indicts 4 MC officials for lapses; recommends action
The UT vigilance department in its inquiry report pertaining to overcharging by parking contractor outside Elante mall has recommended departmental action against four civic body officials, including the additional commissioner, for a number of lapses. However, no action has been recommended against the contractor in the report. The report was submitted to UT adviser Vijay Dev on Friday.chandigarh Updated: Aug 01, 2015 15:00 IST
The UT vigilance department in its inquiry report pertaining to overcharging by parking contractor outside Elante mall has recommended departmental action against four civic body officials, including the additional commissioner, for a number of lapses. However, no action has been recommended against the contractor in the report. The report was submitted to UT adviser Vijay Dev on Friday.
Taking note of the a series of reports appearing in Hindustan Times in April this year, highlighting how the contractor managing the parking lot outside Elante mall was fleecing people by overcharging, UT adviser Vijay Dev had ordered a vigilance probe.
The officers against whom action has been recommended include additional commissioner of municipal corporation Sarita Malik, superintendent of parking Kashmira Singh, inspector (enforcement) Sunil Kumar and sub inspector (enforcement) Darshan Pal Singh.
The report stated that MC officials failed to perform their duty and contractor was regularly violating the terms and conditions of the contract by fleecing the common man.
Coming down heavily on the officers, the report stated that while giving one-year extension to contractor Pritpal Singh in November 2014, the officers had found his performance ‘satisfactory’, despite the fact that he was issued seven challans in the previous year. “It shows that the MC’ junior staff was given a free hand in the process of renewal of licence, wherein no guidelines were followed to evaluate the performance of the contractor. Also, the additional commissioner had used her discretion in renewing the contract,” the report pointed out.
Speaking to HT, a senior officer of UT administration confirmed that vigilance has submitted only one report pertaining to parking lot outside Elante mall and the reports regarding other parking lots would be submitted next week.
HT in its reports in April this year highlighted how the parking contractors at Sukhna Lake and outside Elante mall were fleecing people by overcharging. The contractor managing the parking lot outside Elante mall was charging Rs 20 instead of the mandated Rs 10 from four-wheelers, and Rs 10 instead of mandated Rs 5 from two-wheelers. Finally, the MC had terminated the contracts of the said contractors.
Lapses pointed out in vigilance report
Lack of proper checking: The report says, during the handing of parking lot to the contractor on December 20, 2013, the official concerned had stated that e-ticketing machine and CCTV cameras were operational, but first challan issued against the contractor on January 30, 2014, pointed out that there were no CCTV cameras installed. Also, there was a gap of five months between the first and the second challan issued against the contractor.
Workers deployment: Even as the contractor did not provide the list of employees required at the parking lot under the clause 9-B, officers did not challan him, which was one of reasons that the workers misbehaved with public.
Grounds for challan: The official only took into consideration seven points for challaning the contractor, whereas as per terms and conditions, there are 11 points on which challan can be issued against a contractor.
13 challans, no action: Despite issuing 13 challans in a year, MC officials did not take any strict action against the contractor. Also, the officials only acted after the Hindustan Times launched a campaign against the wrongs, prompting MC to five challans in four days. Before that, from January to March, only six challans had been issued.
Supervision not up to the mark: Senior level officer didn’t supervise as they should have and inspections were done by the junior staff only.