Expert Panels Blame BRS Govt Era Officials for Kaleshwaram Failure

Hyderabad: The Telangana government appears to have a full plate on its table with respect to the Kaleshwaram project with two reports on failures in the project already with it — one from the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) on the technical reasons for failure of the project’s three barrages, and second, the inquiry report from the government’s own Vigilance & Enforcement wing on Medigadda barrage, recommending strict action against 40 serving and retired officials from the irrigation department for criminal complicity in the project’s execution.

The two reports are soon to be joined by a third, sometime this May, from the Justice P.C. Ghose commission of inquiry into the reasons for failures at Medigadda, Annaram, and Sundilla barrages. The commission is also expected to indicate culpability of officials from the irrigation, and other departments, as well as the role of the companies awarded the contracts for construction of the barrages.

Incidentally, the V&E report was limited, as per its probe’s terms of references to Medigadda barrage alone, and all aspects of the barrage including planning, design, construction and maintenance.

“Had this probe covered the rest of the Kaleshwaram project components, then the list of officials would have been much, much longer. This is the reason why former ENC B Hariram, involved with the project and was arrested by the ACB for amassing huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, does not figure in the V&E report as he was not involved with Medigadda,” a source in the government said.

Though the Vigilance Commission endorsed the findings of the inquiry report, the government is learnt to be baulking at initiating any action as that could pretty much empty out the Telangana irrigation department, or at least remove from their jobs — at least during the period of inquiry — at least half of its middle and senior level engineering staff.

Following the submission of the 258-page report with hundreds of pages of annexures by the V&E wing on March 3, 2025, the Vigilance Commission in its letter to the irrigation secretary on March 18, said it agrees with the report’s findings and advised the department to “initiate criminal proceedings” against the 40 officials, and L&T PES-JV “whose action led to the sinking of Medigadda barrage as well as caused a huge financial loss to the government exchequer.”

It further said that such action should be taken “immediately,” and that the entire case be entrusted to the Commission of Inquiries at an appropriate stage. Incidentally, many of the irrigation officials against whom the V&E said action should be taken, have also been the subject of cross examination by the Justice Ghose commission of Inquiry.

The Vigilance Commission said cases must be booked against 17 current and former top irrigation department engineers – including those from the department’s Central Designs Organisation which was responsible for Medigadda designs - under various provisions of the law, as well as the Dam Safety Act 2021, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984.

In addition, the Vigilance Commission also recommended departmental and disciplinary proceedings against 33 irrigation officials including some from the list of 17 against whom criminal proceedings were recommended.

Further, in a separate list of seven retired officials, the Vigilance Commission called for action under various rules and provisions governing pensions.

Since multiple actions were being recommended against some officials, the Vigilance Commission made it clear that the Supreme Court had previously observed that there is no legal bar for the disciplinary authority to initiate such simultaneous disciplinary action pending investigation by the police or pending criminal proceedings in any court.

With respect to L&T PES joint venture, the V&E report called for initiating criminal action against the agency “whose actions led to the sinking of Medigadda Barrage as well as caused huge financial loss to the government exchequer,” under various provisions of the law, and relevant provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Dam Safety Act 2021 and PDPP Act 1984 as deemed fit.

It further said action should be taken against the contractor for “transgression in claiming the completion of the barrage works despite failing to fulfil the obligations,” and to recover the cost of replacement of Block No.7 of Medigadda barrage from the contractor,” since “the agency carried out faulty execution of secant piles without following their own method statement due to which piping action took place under the raft that led to formation of cavities and ultimately resulted in sinking of Block no.7.”