Gurgaon: MCG has initiated disciplinary action against its executive engineer (EE), with commissioner Pradeep Dahiya recommending that a major penalty be imposed on him for alleged irregularities in the operations of mechanical road sweeping machines (MRSMs). The recommendation seeks initiation of major-penalty proceedings under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, following an inquiry that has exposed glaring deficiencies in machinery handover, physical verification, supervision and enforcement of contractual obligations.A letter recommending the action against Sunder Sheoran was sent by the civic body to the urban local bodies (ULB) department on Oct 30. Rule 7 provides the framework for imposing major penalties on govt employees, including reduction in rank or pay, compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal, subject to the prescribed disciplinary procedure. “Inefficiency won’t be tolerated. There have been lapses in this case, so the action was taken,” the MCG commissioner told TOI.Significantly, the letter along with the inquiry report sent by Dahiya to the ULB department specifically refers to two TOI news reports published on Oct 16 and Oct 29. The inquiry was conducted by additional commissioner Yash Jaluka. The reports had exposed machines lying idle, poor deployment and glaring shortfalls in road-sweeping operations. The inquiry has taken cognisance of these reports and recommended verification of their findings against GPS records, logbooks and field inspection reports.The letter — sent by Dahiya to the ULB department — said, “In particular, newspaper cutting dated 16.10.2026 and 29.10.2026 highlight parked machines and substantial shortfalls in recorded movement and coverage. These reports warrant verification against GPS records, logbooks and field inspection reports and underline the seriousness of the operational deficiencies. The lapses recorded in the inquiry indicate a serious failure to safeguard public assets. They also compromise essential road-sweeping and dust-control services.”The inquiry found that the handover process was not backed by adequate physical verification of machines and their components. More seriously, there were no proper written handover/taking-over records or certification documenting the actual condition of the machinery. According to the probe, these machines were allegedly transferred without the elementary documentation and verification expected in the management of municipal assets.The inquiry identifies four major areas of alleged negligence attributable to Sheoran. First, the physical handover and taking-over process lacked adequate verification of the machines and their components. Second, proper written records and certification of the condition of the machines were not maintained. Third, supervision was found inadequate to ensure that municipal assets were properly accounted for and safeguarded. Fourth, appropriate action for penalties and recovery of repair costs from the outgoing agency was allegedly not demonstrably taken.The inquiry has not confined its scrutiny to the outgoing contractor or the municipal engineer. It has also examined the obligations of the incoming agency, Radha Krishan Coop. According to the official communication, clause 3.6 of the request for proposal (RFP) required the incoming agency to inspect the machines before bidding and accept them on an “as is where is” basis. Clause 5(d) stipulated that major repairs were to be completed within seven days.Despite an email dated Oct 2 claiming that all machines were operational in the field, the inquiry found prima facie deficiencies in inspection, verification and timely rectification of faults. The report recommends assessment and recovery of costs relating to missing components, repairs and applicable penalties from the responsible agencies.The MCG had issued a work order for 20 machines on Sept 26 and another for five machines on Aug 12. Sheoran was the officer in charge of the work during the relevant period. The commissioner had entrusted the inquiry to Jaluka, who conducted the investigation on Oct 27 and submitted his report on Oct 28. The concerned executive engineer and representatives of the agency also participated in the inquiry. A charge-sheet under rule 7 sets in motion formal disciplinary proceedings in which the officer is required to respond to the allegations and is afforded an opportunity to defend himself.
About The Author
