Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair, Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, rapped the Corporation Secretary for the inaction and for filing an irresponsible statement.

In its order, the Ombudsman has asked the Corporation Secretary to issue notice to three engineers, on whom the Corporation has placed responsibility for the lapse, to state why the amount incurred by the Corporation for this project should not be recovered from them with an interest of ten percent.

The Secretary has also been directed to consider initiation of disciplinary action against the persons responsible for their dereliction of duty. ``Want of tender is a stock excuse these engineers raise to cover up their inefficiency. If these engineers do not know how to complete even such a petty work under the provisions of the code governing the matter, even if no contractor comes forward to do the work, they may deserve suspension during the enquiry,’’ Justice Hariharan Nair said in his order.

The Ombudsman has directed the Secretary and Corporation Engineer to take the matter seriously and initiate alternative action forthwith for completing the project in three months and to file a progress report at the next sitting.

The case was registered suo motu based on a media report which said that as the construction of the comfort station at East Fort remains incomplete, the facility could not be opened to the public even after four years merely for want of water and electricity connections and that the 10 cents of land on which it stands might be encroached upon by interested persons any moment.

The Ombudsman has pointed out that though the Secretary was asked to file a statement on July 22 showing why the comfort station was remaining closed and what steps were being taken to provide water and electricity connections, the Secretary, without taking any step to rectify the inaction pointed out to him, had filed an irresponsible statement.

The Secretary had claimed in the statement that though an estimate was prepared for providing water supply and electrical installations, it had not materialised since no contractor had come forward to take up the work, apart from the want of a drainage connection.

To this, the Ombudsman said, ``Mention of want of contractor as the excuse shows that the engineer concerned is either unfit to hold the post or is incompetent. What is obvious is irresponsibility, dereliction of duty and inaction, coupled with impertinence.’’