Three Superintending Engineers, five Executive Engineers and five Sub-Divisional Officers asked to explain unsatisfactory complaint disposal; department gives them 15 days to respond
Published on: October 17, 2026
By: BTNI
Location: Raipur, India
The Chhattisgarh government has reiterated its focus on resolving public grievances registered through CM Helpline-1076, with the Public Works Department (PWD) issuing show-cause notices to 13 officers over the unsatisfactory disposal of complaints.
The notices have been issued to three Superintending Engineers, five Executive Engineers and five Sub-Divisional Officers after a review found that complaints related to the department had been closed without substantive remarks demonstrating that the issues raised by citizens had been resolved.
The review covered complaints registered during August and September 2026 on the CM Helpline portal. According to the department, complaints closed at the L-1, L-2 and L-3 levels contained remarks that did not adequately establish the resolution of the grievances.
Five Sub-Divisional Officers Issued Notices at L-1 Level
The PWD issued show-cause notices to the following officers over unsatisfactory complaint disposal at the L-1 level:
- Atul Raj Pegwar, Sub-Divisional Officer, National Highways Sub-Division, Bilaspur
- Rajesh Kumar Bajpai, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bemetara Sub-Division
- Jagdish Prasad, Sub-Divisional Officer, Pendra Sub-Division
- Ashok Kumar Hariare, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bridge Sub-Division, Durg
- Sonal Dhalendra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan Sub-Division
The department said the complaints were closed without remarks adequately explaining the action taken to address the issues raised by citizens.
Five Executive Engineers Face Notices at L-2 Level
At the L-2 level, five Executive Engineers were issued notices over the failure to ensure proper resolution of complaints:
- Keshav Prasad Lahre, Executive Engineer, Bemetara Division
- Ghasiram Jangde, Executive Engineer, Korba Division
- Roshan Kumar Sahu, Executive Engineer, National Highways Division, Bilaspur
- Pyare Lal Paikra, Executive Engineer, Sarangarh Division
- Pragya Nand, Executive Engineer, Kanker Division
The department’s review found that the remarks recorded while closing the complaints did not adequately demonstrate their resolution.
ALSO READ-
- Gauri Nagar Cattle Slaughter Case: Muslim Community Seeks Strict Action, Announces Social Boycott of Accused
- Lakholi Dussehra Festival to Feature Grand Procession, Fireworks and 51-Foot Ravana Effigy
- “Little Steps with Maa Durga”: Devotion and Festivity Fill Gayatri Vidyapeeth During Navratri
- Rajnandgaon Mayor Madhusudan Yadav Inspects Nawagaon Sanitation Park, Reviews Compost Plant Progress
- Rajnandgaon Police March Cow Slaughter Case Accused Through City, Make Them Perform Sit-Ups
Three Superintending Engineers Issued Notices at L-3 Level
At the L-3 level, the department issued show-cause notices to three Superintending Engineers for complaints closed without substantive remarks:
- D. K. Netam, Superintending Engineer, Division No. 2, Raipur
- Arpana Chaurpagaar, Superintending Engineer, Durg Circle
- Mahadev Lahre, Superintending Engineer, National Highways Circle, Bilaspur
The notices seek explanations regarding the handling and closure of complaints under their respective levels of responsibility.
Department Specifies Requirements for Closing Complaints
According to the notices, complaint closure remarks are expected to clearly record the findings of a site inspection, the action taken or proposed, the relevant date or timeline, and whether the complainant was informed.
If a complaint falls under the jurisdiction of another department, the remarks should clearly state the reason for transferring or referring the matter.
The department observed that the absence of such details meant the recorded remarks did not establish that the citizen’s problem had been resolved. It also said that this could make the disposal figures displayed on the portal misleading.
Officers Given 15 Days to Submit Written Replies
The PWD has treated the lapses as possible negligence in the discharge of official duties and failure to perform assigned responsibilities appropriately. The show-cause notices require the officers to submit their written explanations to the Secretary of the Public Works Department within 15 days of receiving the notices.
The department has stated that if the written replies are not received within the prescribed period, further action may be taken on an ex parte basis.
The action forms part of the state government’s stated emphasis on ensuring that complaints registered through CM Helpline-1076 are addressed substantively rather than merely marked as closed on the portal.
