E-Paper
Booth resumed despite penalty’s payment: 2 Chandigarh Estate Office employees face action
The complainant, who owned a booth in Sector 21, Chandigarh, had submitted a demand draft to pay penalty for building violations, but it was misplaced by the Estate Office staff
The UT vigilance department has directed the UT estate officer to initiate departmental action against a senior assistant and a sub-inspector (enforcement), posted with the Estate Office, over lapses in discharging their official responsibilities.
The directions came on the complaint of the owner of a booth in Sector 21 who alleged misplacement of his demand draft, submitted for payment of a building violation penalty, due to which the property was resumed and subsequently leased to another party.
The complainant, Gurcharan Singh, had filed a complaint with the estate officer and Chandigarh Police in 2020, stating that the lease of booth number 27 in Sector 21-C was cancelled and he was ordered to pay a penalty of ₹2,010.
Eventually, the lease was restored, but the penalty was to be paid within 30 days, failing which the lease would stay cancelled.
The complainant submitted that he had handed over a demand draft for paying the penalty, but the Estate Office staff misplaced it and didn’t submit it further.
As a result, the order for lease cancellation became final and a new sale deed for the booth was executed in favour of one Laljit Singh, who further sold it to Ajit Singh Talwar and Rubby Talwar.
Through an inquiry into the matter, the vigilance department found that Ramesh Kalyan, the then record keeper who is now posted as sub-inspector (enforcement), was well-versed with the said booth’s case, as he had put up the orders regarding the lease restoration and receipt of penalty. However, he failed to update the register, which reflected the booth as “resumed”.
Subsequently, the then dealing assistant, Rajinder Singh Sehgal, checked the property’s status through the official website and based on the computer-generated report on the building violations, processed the file for transferring 100% share in the name of Laljit Singh.
“Sehgal solely relied upon the computer-generated report, whereas he should have gone through the file before processing the transfer case,” vigilance said, ordering departmental action against both Sehgal and Kalyan for lapses on their part.
“It is also advised to take necessary action and issue directions/guidelines for the systemic improvements as suggested in the inquiry report to avoid such incidents in future,” vigilance added.
Earlier on August 17, under fire from the Supreme Court over its working, the Estate Office had suspended four senior assistants and one assistant for failure to discharge their responsibilities and causing financial loss to the administration.
