Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) has suspended executive engineer Vijay Sonawane and deputy engineer Ashok More after discrepancies were found in mitigation fees charged for occupancy certificates for residential and commercial buildings in Punawale, according to an order issued by municipal commissioner Vijay Suryawanshi.
The commissioner has directed the General Administration Department to begin a departmental inquiry against both officials and submit charge sheets within 15 days. The action follows a complaint by former BJP deputy mayor and corporator Tushar Hinge to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who ordered an inquiry into the matter.
The discrepancy relates to the amounts recorded in forms A and B for mitigation fees payable for occupancy certificates. The buildings in question had received construction permissions, but the fee calculations connected to their occupancy certificates were found to differ between the two forms, the report said.
The municipal administration had issued show-cause notices to the concerned officials and sought their explanations. Department heads subsequently informed the commissioner that the explanations submitted by Sonawane and More were not satisfactory. The two officials have been charged with violating provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.
The suspension and inquiry concern the functioning of PCMC’s building permission system, through which developers and property owners obtain construction approvals and occupancy certificates. The occupancy certificate is an important regulatory document confirming that a completed building can be used in accordance with approved plans and applicable requirements.
The chief minister’s intervention followed broader allegations raised by Hinge about financial irregularities and corruption in the municipal building permission department. In his complaint, he alleged that officials had remained in the department for several years and misused their authority to financially pressure citizens.
The complaint also alleged that files submitted for construction approvals were deliberately returned with technical objections, deficiencies and errors, causing delays in the approval process. It further alleged that changes to original site or road plans, references to sanctioned reservations and unnecessary legal objections were used to create financial and administrative difficulties for applicants.
Those wider allegations are separate from the specific fee discrepancy cited in the suspension order and will have to be examined through the departmental inquiry. The report does not establish that the broader allegations have been proven.
The commissioner had earlier directed immediate scrutiny of the allegations and issued a show-cause notice to at least one official. The next formal step ordered by the municipal administration is the preparation and submission of charge sheets within 15 days, followed by the departmental inquiry.
