Telangana HC grants relief to IAS officer from action in Kaleshwaram case
Smita Sabharwal served as secretary in the chief minister’s office during the tenure of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government headed by K Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR)
The Telangana high court on Thursday granted interim relief to senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Smita Sabharwal from prosecution in the case related to alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation project, based on the Justice P C Ghose Commission report which probed the case, people familiar with the matter said.
A division bench of the high court comprising chief justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and justice G M Mohiuddin, which heard the arguments over a petition filed by Sabharwal seeking to quash the Ghose Commission report, directed that no adverse action be taken against based on the report. The bench posted the case to October 7 for further hearing.
Sabharwal served as secretary in the chief minister’s office during the tenure of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government headed by K Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR).
Also Read: SC issues notice on bail pleas of Khalid, Imam
The bench had earlier granted similar interim protection to KCR, former irrigation minister T Harish Rao and also former chief secretary Shailendra Kumar Joshi. The bench said it will hear the arguments on Sabharwal’s petition, along with these three petitions.
The Commission, in its report, stated that Smita Sabharwal had played a key role in the execution of the barrages, citing her visits to construction sites, field inspections, and feedback to the then chief minister and involvement in granting administrative permissions.
{{/usCountry}}The Commission, in its report, stated that Smita Sabharwal had played a key role in the execution of the barrages, citing her visits to construction sites, field inspections, and feedback to the then chief minister and involvement in granting administrative permissions.
{{/usCountry}}It went on to recommend action against her for allegedly violating business rules by not placing crucial files before the Cabinet. Calling these findings arbitrary, prejudicial, and violative of natural justice, Sabharwal urged the court to strike down the report insofar as it concerned her.
{{/usCountry}}It went on to recommend action against her for allegedly violating business rules by not placing crucial files before the Cabinet. Calling these findings arbitrary, prejudicial, and violative of natural justice, Sabharwal urged the court to strike down the report insofar as it concerned her.
{{/usCountry}}In her petition, Sabharwal contended that the Commission made “serious and adverse remarks” against her without following the mandatory safeguards under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which require prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
{{/usCountry}}In her petition, Sabharwal contended that the Commission made “serious and adverse remarks” against her without following the mandatory safeguards under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which require prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
{{/usCountry}}She asserted that she was not part of the decision-making process regarding the construction of the barrages and had no role in granting approvals.
Sabharwal had challenged the Commission’s report in the high court, questioning the issuance of notices and the process of recording statements.