Rajasthan High Court Upholds Charge-Sheets Against Two PWD Engineers Over 'Grave Deficiencies' In Construction Of New HC Building

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld chargesheets issued against two PWD engineers in disciplinary proceedings initiated over "grave" deficiencies in construction of high court's new building at Jodhpur. Noting that multiple incidents of roof collapsing have occurred, the bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja observed:"once it is found that there were serious lapses in construction work, the issuance of charge-sheets by the respondents to the appellants who were working as Project Director and Project Officer, respectively, cannot be faulted."Two appeals were filed before the High Court challenging the chargesheet issued related to the damage and fundamental deficiencies of the High Court at Jodhpur. Notably the high court had on Monday taken suo motu cognizance of the serious structural defects in its Principal Seat building at Jodhpur, including the Central Dome, after an ongoing structural audit by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay indicated that the Dome is at risk of imminent collapsePer the facts, the Rajasthan State Road Development Corporation Limited (RSRDCL) (Respondent no 3), which is under the administrative control of the Public Works Department, was entrusted with the construction of the new building at Jodhpur. The respondents, on account of serious deficiencies in the construction of the new High Court building, issued a chargesheet on May 30, 2025, against the appellants under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958. The appellants are— Executive Engineer in the PWD serving as the Project Director, and Assistant Engineer in the PWD serving as Project Officer, and the deficiencies were alleged to have occurred due to their negligence. They both served in the RSRDCL between 10.10.2010 to 27.04.2021. The appellants challenged the chargesheet before the High Court even without filing their replies. The High Court had dismissed the petitions in January 2026. Thus, they have filed the present appeals. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the chargesheet was premature as their roles were only to monitor civil work, whereas the root cause of the deficiencies is yet to be identified. It was further argued that there were other officials responsible for supervising the construction work, apart from the appellants, who have not been proceeded against. The Advocate General for the State argued that the appellants were primarily responsible for ensuring substandard material was not used and that the contracts were properly executed by the contractors. It was further submitted that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings is very limited and that the court cannot undertake analysis of the enquiry reports relied on by the appellants. The Advocate General further referred to the report of MS PT Mase and Associates in Nagpur, which recorded the deficiencies in the construction work. The court noted that the scope of judicial review in matters concerning challenge to chargesheets is well settled and restricts a court from interfering at the stage of issuance of a show-cause notice or chargesheet. The court noted that it could only interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the preliminary stage if the chargesheet is issued with mala fide intention or is wholly illegal or issued without jurisdiction. The court deemed it relevant to take note of various incidents that have occurred after the construction of the said building:- On February 20, 2023, the ceiling of chamber 14 collapsed, damaging the false ceiling and other furniture. Similar incidents also occurred in courts 2, 9, and 16, as well as in chamber 16. - On April 29, 2023, a small portion of the roof of the dome area collapsed. - On September 12, 2024, due to rain, the roof of Court No 2 started dripping. Further, the gypsum board of the false ceiling in the Accounts branch fell downRejecting the contention that the root cause of the deficiencies is yet to be identified, the court refused to examine the enquiry reports at the preliminary stage as examination of the same would lead to evaluation of the sufficinecy of evidence and merits which is not permissible per the settled positions of law. Further, the court also rejected the argument that the appellants have been prosecuted selectively, noting that the chargesheet was issued to nine people, including the appellants, and therefore their contention of selective prosecution is factually incorrect. The bench further noted that the chargesheet specifically alleged negligence on the part of the appellants, and therefore the Chargesheet was not vague. Referring to Para 11.2 of the order, the court noted that it indicated substandard material and deficiencies in the construction and negligence on the part of the appellants in discharging their duties. Further, the court also noted that the appellants have an opportunity to submit their replies to the chargesheet and participate in the...

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Charge-Sheets Against Two PWD Engineers Over 'Grave Deficiencies' In Construction Of New HC Building

Jayanti Pahwa

The High Court yesterday took cognizance of the serious structural defects in its Principal Seat building at Jodhpur.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Charge-Sheets Against Two PWD Engineers Over 'Grave Deficiencies' In Construction Of New HC Building

Jayanti Pahwa

The High Court yesterday took cognizance of the serious structural defects in its Principal Seat building at Jodhpur.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers