Sign in

Delhi floods: HC stays suspension order of Haryana chief engineer

Suspension orders passed over alleged negligence in the operation of the ITO barrage gates that led to flood-like situation in Delhi in July.

Updated on: Aug 24, 2023, 24:37:37 IST
By , Chandigarh
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has stayed the suspension order, issued on August 8, of Haryana irrigation department chief engineer Sandeep Taneja over alleged negligence in the operation of the ITO barrage gates that led to waterlogging and flood-like situation in Delhi in July.

The high court bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya acted on the plea from Taneja, who had argued that the order of suspension has been passed on the basis of a report of a fact-finding committee as per which, no misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner. (HT File)
The high court bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya acted on the plea from Taneja, who had argued that the order of suspension has been passed on the basis of a report of a fact-finding committee as per which, no misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner. (HT File)

The high court bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya acted on the plea from Taneja, who had argued that the order of suspension has been passed on the basis of a report of a fact-finding committee as per which, no misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner.

The solitary observation in the report is that he being the highest officer of irrigation and water resources department at Delhi did not conduct any meeting before monsoon to review the status of flood management and no attention seems to have been paid to the ITO Yamuna barrage in Delhi.

This is not a finding of misconduct. Besides, the observation is factually incorrect as the meetings were duly conducted, he had argued.

The court has deferred hearing for January 17 and stayed the order. The court observed the fact-finding report talks of total failure of the operation and maintenance on the part of officers, but there is nothing specific against him. “This does not justify the respondents’ action singling him out for being placed under suspension,” the bench said.