Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought a detailed response from the state highways department on how it ensures the quality of road works and what disciplinary action has been taken against erring officials in the past five years, the court recorded on Friday.
The direction came from Justice B. Pugalendhi on a petition filed by P. Thavaneethi, a quality control assistant engineer of the department, who challenged a charge memo dated 23 June 2026 that held him responsible for alleged substandard work on six stretches comprising 198 km of State Highways and 360 km of major district roads in Sivagangai district.
Court seeks implementation details of 2010 G.O.
Thavaneethi relied on a government order dated 24 December 2010, which, the petition states, assigns responsibility for lapses in execution at three levels: field-level officers first, quality control officers second and supervising officers third. The petitioner alleged that he alone had been selectively targeted despite the tiered accountability framework.
The court observed that an earlier request for clarifications to the highways department had been met with a status report that was vague and did not answer specific queries. The bench further noted that when it attempted to access the full text of the 2010 G.O. on the department’s website, the order was not available online and directed the department to explain the omission and to state steps taken to implement the G.O.
“Though the administrations have changed, it appears that the officers are protecting the wrongdoers by not initiating necessary action,”
Justice Pugalendhi criticised the apparent failure to initiate required steps under the G.O. and sought comprehensive details of action taken against first-, second- and third-level officers in cases involving substandard road works, as envisaged by the order. The case is listed for further hearing on 28 September.
Local impact and accountability questions
Road users and local bodies in and around Sivagangai stand to be affected by delays in remedial work and by recurring defects if quality-control mechanisms are not properly implemented. The court’s directions seek both an institutional explanation of quality assurance processes and a record of disciplinary measures taken against officials responsible for execution, supervision and testing.
The petition and the bench’s observations highlight two specific issues for the highways department:
- Explain the technical and administrative methods used to ensure quality of newly laid road stretches.
- Produce records of departmental action, including charge memos and penalties, against officers at the three levels named in the 2010 G.O.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Number of stretches implicated | 6 |
| State Highways | 198 km |
| Major district roads | 360 km |
| Petitioner's role | Quality control assistant engineer |
The court’s demand for clarity on both procedural compliance and the availability of the G.O. online places the onus on the highways department to produce documentary evidence in the next hearing. If the department fails to provide a satisfactory response, the bench may require specific records or direct a formal departmental enquiry to establish responsibility across all three supervisory tiers mentioned in the 2010 order.
The matter raises broader questions for citizens about transparency in public works and the effectiveness of internal controls designed to prevent defective road construction. The Madurai Bench’s order signals judicial insistence on documentary accountability from the highways administration before it proceeds further on the charge memo issued to the petitioner.
