Garhwal Post Bureau
Nainital, 27 Mar: The Uttarakhand High Court today declined to grant interim relief to an engineer who has been suspended after allegations surfaced regarding the use of soil instead of sand in the construction of a bridge in Saud area of Dehradun district. Hearing the matter, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay directed the respondents to file their reply within three weeks and fixed the next hearing after the same period.
During the proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that irregularities were detected in the bridge construction work, wherein soil was allegedly being used in place of sand. The issue came to light after the local villagers raised objections and recorded videos of the construction activity. The matter was subsequently reported to the executing agency, Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited, following which the company placed engineer Ajay Kumar under suspension.
The respondents further argued before the court that the use of soil instead of sand in such a critical infrastructure project poses a serious risk to public safety and amounted to compromising the future security of citizens. It was contended that such negligence not only endangered lives but also constituted misuse of public funds, as the bridge, once completed under such conditions, could potentially lead to accidents.
Challenging the suspension order, the petitioner engineer approached the High Court, contending that the action taken against him was in violation of the applicable central administrative service rules. It was argued that the executing agency does not have the authority to suspend him, as he had been deputed from the Public Works Department (PWD) and, therefore, only the parent department is competent to initiate disciplinary action.
The petitioner also maintained that his appointment was made by the Public Works Department (PWD) and sought reinstatement on the grounds that the suspension order was beyond the jurisdiction of the executing agency. However, the Court, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations and the larger public interest involved, declined to grant any interim relief at this stage.
The Bench orally observed during the hearing that safeguarding public interest remains the foremost priority and emphasised the need to thoroughly examine the matter. The Court has directed the respondents to file their detailed reply within three weeks, after which the case will be taken up for further hearing.
