ISSUES OF MES - BIGGEST GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION AGENCY
1) Brief History of MES
A military works branch under Inspector General was raised as part of PWD
In 1871 . In 1881 military works branch was transferred to Military Department
Defence , as there was hardly any presence of Navy ,Air Force and other wings
of Defence Department then .By 1887 all military works came to Military works
Branch .MES was created in 1923 on Army HQ establishment and E-in-C of
Indian Army was given additional charge of MES with a direction that Army
officers posted in MES shall be paid at MES rates. At that point of time there was
no civilian cadre in MES. In 1948 ,MES was put under MOD with the intention of
converting military posts to civilian posts . Thereafter, in 1959, DGW was asked
to report to QMG instead of E-in-C. Subsequently, after conflict with China in1962
when there was large-scale expansion of MES, DGW was again asked to report
to E-in-C. Thus DGW (like CPWD) who headed MES was made to report to
either QMG or E-in-C at different points of time. In 1963 a large number of civilian
Group A officers were recruited through UPSC. Since its creation, MES has
grown more than 100 times but vested interest of Corps of Engineers has
prevented installation of dedicated head of MES, in spite of the fact that it is the
largest construction agency under Union of India. In fact, it has been denied its
own HQ both at National level as well as Command level.
E-in-C has been only holding additional charge of MES in addition to his own
duties as Head of Corps of Engineers (earlier known as Miners and Sappers)
since 1962.
2) Charter of MES
MES undertakes construction of new infrastructure works and their
subsequent maintenance for Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guards, Ordnance
Factories, DRDO and other organizations associated with the defence
establishments. The works executed by the MES are of permanent nature
intended to have long life span. MES has successfully constructed permanent
infrastructure for Naval Bases, Army Cantonments, Air Force Stations, Ordnance
Factories,
Coast
Guard
and
DRDO. Construction
of
Airfields,
Aircraft
maintenance and storage facilities, Naval dockyards, jetties, wharfs, radar
communication stations, Coast guard stations, DRDO laboratories for high
precision experiments, Missile storage and launching facilities, Large Ammunition
and other Storage facilities, Factory Buildings for production of defence
equipments and ammunition, Residential buildings, office buildings, Hospital
buildings, Air Conditioning facilities, Electric supply infrastructure, water supply
infrastructure, sewage treatment and disposal facilities and Road infrastructure
are the works typically undertaken by the MES. Continuous focus on
development and creation of defence infrastructure, MES has since grown to its
present state with an annual workload of more than Rs 12000 crores. MES is
also responsible for maintenance of existing defence infrastructure worth more
than Rs 2 lac crores.
3) Human Resource in MES
MES is an inter-service organization, predominantly manned by the personnel
from civil stream. Out of total strength of approximately 80,000 plus, about 86%
personnel working in MES are from civil services and the remaining are from
Corps of Engineers of Army. A brief on personnel coming from two different
streams is as under:
a) Army Personnel: Officers, JCOs and ORs are posted to MES at various
levels to work side by side with their civilian counterparts. SL officers, ORs
and JCOs are posted to MES after receiving basic training in the work that
they are supposed to do in MES and they acquire necessary skill as they
remain posted in MES for most of their service life. However, Indian
Commissioned officers from Corps of Engineers of Army are posted on tenure
basis, for training purpose. These officers are primarily screened and trained
for combat skills and their core job is construction of temporary structures for
limited use during war such as road, shelters, creation and removal of
obstacles, erection and dismantling of steel bridges, etc and mining and demining including bomb disposal. These officers are posted to MES directly at
various levels often without any prior experience in MES works and entrusted
with the key positions that are vital for good health of the organisation. Army
officers posted in MES constitute about 19.1% of total officer strength but all
the key appointments at the policy making level, except DG(Pers) are held by
them.
b) Civilian Personnel: All the industrial personnel are civilian and majority of
officials at supervisory and higher level are from civil service. There is no
institutional arrangement for training of civilian personnel constituting about
86% of its work force and most of the personnel acquire skills from on job
training as they grow in the organisation. Some civilian officers are promoted
from supervisory levels and majority of them are recruited by the UPSC
through all India competitive examination. Civilian officers of various cadres
constitute about 81% of total officer strength and its main constituent is
Engineering Cadre called Indian Defence Service of Engineers (IDSE), which
mostly consists of engineers recruited from prestigious Engineering Services
examination. A large number of officers are engineering graduates/ post
graduates from IITs/NITs and other prestigious institutions. Although there is
no institutional training arrangement for training of officers in MES as yet, they
grow in the department by acquiring skills from on-job experience and training
programme sponsored by the Govt of India for other civil servants. IDSE
Cadre officer also acquire additional skills and experience from their
deputation on CSS to various Govt organisations, DMRC, NHAI, etc. Officers
of IDSE Cadre are highly experienced in works matter and constitute core
strength of the organisation. Civilian officers are mostly deployed for middle
management jobs and are kept out of top management level by posting them
to insignificant appointments when they do reach that level.
4) Structure of the organisation
LEVEL I (Apex Level): MES is headed by the Engineer-in-Chief of Corps of
Engineers of Indian Army, an officer of the rank of Lieutenant General, as an
additional charge. It is very rare that the officer posted as E-in-C had
adequate exposure in MES work services; often they have no prior
experience or very little experience. He is assisted by the following officers: (i)
Director General (Personnel) A Civilian officer of IDSE Cadre of HAG
rank.
(ii)
Director General of Works (Maj. Gen)
(iii)
ADGE (Personnel) (Maj. Gen.)
(iv)
ADGE (ESP) (Maj. Gen.)
(v)
ADGE(Army) (Maj Gen)
Out of five posts four are reserved for Army officers of the rank of Maj Gen
and they are to look after the complete functioning of MES works under the Ein-C and none of these four posts are held on MES establishment. Maj Gen is
equivalent to SAG level officer in civilian hierarchy and thus junior to all the
Civilian ADGs (HAG level) and many of the civilian CEs (SAG level). The
officers posted as DGW/ADGW are much less experienced in works matter,
when compared to civilian ADGs and CEs in the department. Civilian CEs,
who may be senior to them, are posted to work under them along with junior
level officers of various cadres.
An additional post of ADG (Arbitration) for IDSE Cadre officer, two posts of
ADG for Surveyor Cadre officers and one post of ADG for Architect Cadre
officer have recently been created. All these posts are HAG level posts but it
is proposed to keep them out of mainstream policy making by marginalising
them on sides, as in case of the other ADGs of IDSE Cadre.
LEVEL II (Command CEs): MES is organised into six commands under the
E-in-C. Army Officers from Corps of Engineers of Maj Gen Rank, who are
staff officers of their Army Commander, hold charge of MES additionally. They
are not born on strength of MES and their primary job is to perform the duties
of head of corps of engineers in the respective command theatre. As far as
the MES is concerned the command CE deals with the personnel matters like
posting, transfer, records, promotion and discipline of subordinates within the
geographical area of their respective Commands. Their role in the works
services is limited to monitoring of works and budget (Army works only, For
Navy ,Air Force ,R&D ,ordnance works there is no such arrangement for
monitoring .) as actual planning, tendering and execution of works is handled
by Zonal Chief Engineers. However, command CEs, monitor the work of
Zonal CEs and assess the performance of Zonal CEs as their immediate
superior, although he may be junior in SAG Rank. Most of the officer posted
as command CEs do not have adequate experience of MES Works and quite
often they do not possess any MES experience. SAG level officers of various
civilian cadres, who may be senior to him, are posted to work under him along
with junior level officers of various cadres.
ADG (OF & DRDO): This office, located at Secunderabad, was raised
to park one of the IDSE cadre officer promoted to HAG Grade. Duties and
responsibilities are same as for command CEs without combat duties &
personnel matters of MES subordinates. That leaves practically nothing
substantial to be done by the ADG office.
ADG (Design & Consultancy): Erstwhile office of CE (Design and
Consultancy) located at Pune has been upgraded to accommodate a HAG
level officer of IDSE cadre, away from MES HQ at Delhi. The office is involved
in rendering specialist consultancy services to various zone on as required
basis and kept out of policy making functions.
LEVEL III (Zonal CEs): Zones are headed by a SAG level officer from IDSE
Cadre or a Brigadier from Corps of Engineers. Zones are organized to provide
dedicated service to a particular user in their area of responsibility, which may
not necessarily be within a command. There are zonal CEs whose area of
responsibility falls under all the six commands. Zones may be activated or
closed based on the actual requirement from time to time. An Army
Command generally has three to six Zonal Chief Engineers, except Southern
Command which has more than twice the number because of its vast
expanse. CE Zones and formations under them are fully responsible for
planning and execution of all the works and their subsequent maintenance.
Accordingly, CE Zones and their subordinate offices are fully accountable for
non performance in all respects. Zonal Chief Engineers are assisted by both
Civilian/ Army officers of equivalent ranks, that is, Directors (SE), Jt/ Dy
Directors (EE SG/ EE)) and Asst Directors/ Addl Astt Directors AEE/ AE). In
the Architect cadre, the Zonal CEs are provided with Senior Architect (SA)
who is assisted by Architect (Arch), Deputy Arch (Dy Arch) and Asst. Architect
(Gp ‘B’). Similarly the Surveyor Cadre has the SE(QS&C) (JAG), assisted by
EE(QS&C)(STS) and AEE/ AE (QS&C) (JTS). As per rules CE zone posts are
to be shared in the ratio of 50:50 between IDSE Cadre and Corps of
Engineers but in practice the ratio is tilted in favour of Army side officers
obviously due to blessing of E-in-C who is on their side. While a civilian CE is
highly experienced as he reaches that position after toiling hard at each level
of lower hierarchy, no qualification and experience has been laid down for
posting of Brigs as CE. Majority of the Brigs are first timers in MES or having
very little experience.
LEVEL IV Commander Works Engineers (CWEs): Under each Zonal Chief
Engineer there are 3 to 4 Commander Works Engineers (CWE) tenable by
SEs(JAG SG grade) of IDSE Cadre, as well as Colonels from Army side.
These posts are to be manned in the ratio of 50:50 by the IDSE Cadre and
Army officers; the ratio is generally maintained. CWE is assisted by DCWE
(Lt Cols/JAG/STS), ACWE (JTS). CWE is fully competent to deal with all
maintenance matters pertaining to the Garrison Engineers (Lt Cols/ EE)
placed under him. CsWE are competent authorities to plan, tender and
execute all works costing up to Rs 50 lacs. As in case of CE Zone, a CWE
from IDSE cadre is highly experienced due to his prior experience at lower
levels of hierarchy (About 20 years) but no QR has been specified for the
officer from Army stream. Army officer posted as CWE are often without
adequate or no prior MES experience.
LEVEL V Garrison Engineers (GEs): This is most critical level in MES
organisation as intensive supervision of works and programmes is done at
this level. Quality of executed works largely depends on the efficiency,
knowledge and hard work by GE and his subordinates. Quality checks,
Measurements and payments to the agencies are done at this level only. It is
therefore necessary that this level is manned by an experienced person
having adequate experience. Manning ratio between an IDSE Cadre and
Army is kept generally at 50:50. However, as against experienced IDSE
officers who gain necessary experience at lower level, Majors / Lt Cols without
any MES experience are mostly posted as GEs.
LEVEL VI Assistant Garrison Engineers (AGEs): This is lowest level in the
organisational hierarchy of MES. Direct supervision of works, measurements
and preparation and processing of bills is done by the officials working in this
office. This level is manned by a newly recruited IDSE Cadre officer after
initial training, a civilian officer promoted from supervisory level, An IC Captain
from Corps of Engineers and also SL commission officer of Lt/Capt/Maj Rank
from Army. Gaining of experience at this level is very vital to be able to
function as GE efficiently. Although a civilian officer of IDSE Cadre has to
mandatorily perform at this level to qualify for higher level post, the same is
not necessary for Army officers. SL officers, who gain experience at this level
are not allowed to be posted as GE in Army scheme of things and very few IC
Captains are available for posting as AGEs due to acute shortage of young
officers for combat duties, leading to non utilization of ARMY quota.
ADGTE: This is an independent organisation, directly working under QMG.
They are entrusted with the work of carrying out independent intensive
examination of works being carried out by MES formations. Top post of ADG
is reserved for a Maj Gen Rank officer from Corps of Engineers and the rest is
manned by mix of Army and civilian cadre officers as in MES.
Panel of Arbitrators: This is a pool of officers from Army and Civil streams
working independently in quasi judicial capacity to resolve disputes that arise
between the contractors and the department. Brig from Army stream and CE
from IDSE and Surveyor Cadre civil streams are generally posted to work as
arbitrators. Two of the ADGs (HAG level) of surveyor cadre are proposed to
be consumed here after upgrading the posts.
5) Mega Projects undertaken by MES
(i) Married Accommodation Project: A Failed Project
Directorate General of Married Accommodation Project (DG MAP) was
raised to construct married accommodation for the three services, with the
aim of eradicating the deficiency of married accommodation for service
personnel. The MAP was setup to fulfill the promise made to the Armed
Forces by the then PM Shri Atal Behari Bajpai. The Total deficiency of about
two lac dwelling units was proposed to be constructed within 5 years in four
phases but the objective is yet to be met.
(ii) Infrastructure projects in Eastern Sector - A Non Starter
a) Infrastructure development plan in eastern command was sanctioned by MOD
on 27 Oct 2010. CCS approved the strengthening of MES establishment for
the same and accorded go ahead sanction of Rs 368.0 Cr(5% of project cost)
so as to complete the projects in fixed time frame of 334 weeks.
b) Even after lapse of more than 4 years, since sanction, none of the major work
has started on ground and total expenditure in last 4 years is less than 20 Crs
as against Rs 7347.70 Cr total planned. The delay in planning has also
resulted in increase in cost of the works.
c) The project cannot be completed in the targeted time frame and is expected
to meet same fate as MAP.
d) No lesson has been learnt from failure of MAP and once again less
experienced army officers have been entrusted with the top management job.
Policy, processes and HR frame work is being decided by few rather
inexperienced service officers and highly experienced civilian officers have
been kept out.
(iii) Other infrastructure projects – Modernisation of CODs & Military
Hospitals: Old and dilapidated Military infrastructure needs large scale
and urgent upgrade and financial support for the same has already been
agreed by the Govt. These projects are being undertaken by roping in
rather inexperienced Army Officers at the top and keeping senior &
experienced officers of civil stream at bay. The projects are progressing at
snail pace endangering national security and at extra cost to the national
exchequer.
6) Problems in MES
a) Part time head of the department: E-in-C is holding additional charge of
MES and his main job is to function as head of Corps of Engineers and
oversee their war preparedness. The additional charge was given when the
MES organisation was very small and it was feasible to look after both. MES
has grown many folds since then and it is now many times larger than Corps
of Engineers. Duality of charge in one person is now hurting the efficiency of
MES as it gets secondary attention, although larger and perhaps no less
important as it spends a significant amount of public money. There is
therefore an urgent need to create separate head for MES.
b) Inexperienced Top Management: As already mentioned almost all the
senior level appointments such as E-in-C, DGW, DG MAP, DDG MAP, ADG
Army, CEs Command etc have been reserved for army officers who generally
have no experience in handling infrastructure projects. There is no
participation of experienced civilian officers of ADG level in policy formulation
ignoring their vast experience in the field. Failure of Married Accommodation
Project (MAP) and North Eastern infrastructure projects which is still a non
starter are the live examples of mis-handling of mega-projects by
inexperienced army officers.
c) Lack of sense of belongingness: The army officers are posted on all
important positions in the department on tenure basis and do not have any
sense of belongings to the organisation. The civilian officers who belong to
the department are marginalized by posting them to rather unimportant
positions.
d) A dumping ground of Superseded Army Officers: The superseded officers
especially in the middle management level at the rank of Col / Col (TS) /Lt Col
are posted to MES and are generally de-motivated as they have nothing to
look forward. Obviously, much contribution cannot be expected from them.
e) Equivalency: There is a severe crisis in all the offices as regards to the day
to day functioning due to the various issues such as equivalency between
army and civilian officers, inter-se seniority, etc. This has led to a hostile
working environment in the offices and is one of the major factors leading to
overall non-performance of zonal CEs. The issue has been taken to courts
from time to time by the affected civilian officers but the court judgements
have not been implemented in true spirit by the successive E-in-Cs. This has
resulted in a kind of stalemate situation, affecting efficiency of the organisation
adversely.
f) Disparity in pay and perks: Army officers posted to MES for non combatant
work are still provided with all the perks and facilities such as subsidised
accommodation, electricity, water, ration and various allowances. The civilian
officers who are doing same work under same conditions are paid at civil
rates without any extra perks and allowances that are paid to army officers.
This disparity is in violation of fundamental right of equal pay for equal work
and is cause for discontentment amongst civilian officers.
g) Lack of proper training at various levels: After protracted requests, a
training facility for MES officials from civil service stream has been sanctioned
to be set up as a separate wing in College of Military Engineering Pune but
the same is yet to take concrete shape and there are apprehensions of its
effectiveness in achieving the desired goals.
7) Studies on MES Structure
Various studies, from time to time have suggested structural changes in MES but Ein-C branch never made any serious attempt to implement them at the cost of
efficiency of the organization. Excess Army Officers are employed in MES without
approval of cadre controlling authority for vested interests. Some of major
recommendations of these studies are as under:
A. Estimates Committee of Lok Sabha
Estimate committee of 2nd Lok Sabha under the chairmanship of Smt Sucheta
Kriplani carried out first study on MES in 1957 & suggested complete civilianization
but this recommendation was not accepted. Another study was undertaken by
estimates committee of 7th Lok Sabha in 1982, which made following important
recommendations: (a) Recommendation No 74: – Senior Army officers posted to MES should
have adequate experience in MES at the level of AGE/GE. MOD had assured the
committee vide OM no 17C (1)/82/D(works II) dt 1.02.1983 that the issue of
guidelines on posting of Corps of Engineers to MES is under consideration. These
guidelines have still not been issued in spite of provision made in Para 12 of Statuary
rules IDSE vide SRO 95.
(b) Recommendation Nos 75, 77 and 78:- The committee had observed and
accepted by MOD that there is great frustration amongst civilian officers. The
committee also observed that since 1947 when civilian service was constituted, its
cadre management remained neglected and MOD has not done enough to rectify
this sorry state of affairs. It was also recommended and accepted by MOD that
through a series of cadre reviews promotional opportunities of civilian officers in
MES should be brought at par with CPWD and Railways. The committee went to the
extent of observing that civilian officers are not getting their dues and would like
MOD to go into the matter. (MOD OM No 8(C1)/81/D/(civil) of 26 July 1982 and OM
No17(1)/82/D(Wks II) of 15 Oct 1982 refers). During last 30 years, thereafter, the
situation has only worsened.
(c) Recommendation No 86:- The committee had proposed that MOD should
have some institutional arrangement to have across the table dialogue with civilian
officers. In their OM of 15 Oct 1982, although the Ministry stated that regular
meetings are held where both military and civilian officers are present to discuss
cadre management but practically no such meetings has ever been held.
B. Fifth Pay Commission
Fifth Pay Commission asked for detailed presentation on structure of MES from
MOD, but that job was given to E-in-C. After due deliberation the following
recommendations were made by the commission: Para 33.15 and33.16: Service personnel from MES should be withdrawn as an
economy measure and also to make up deficiency of Army Units.
Para50.102 and Para50.103:
(i) Civilian HAG level officer be designated as DG and Army Maj Gen be
designated as Jt DG.
(ii) Head of MES should be a Civilian officer.
Para 50.106: Complete Civilianization of MES be set as a long time objective as
is the trend World over.
C. V S Jafa Committee
In order to nullify the recommendation of V CPC, E-in-C prevailed upon COAS, who
is not in the chain of command of MES, to appoint 30 member committee of Service
officers in the year 2000 under GOC-in-C of Central Command. Fortunately, MOD
did not take cognizance of this one sided report but in the year 2001, appointed a
Committee under the chairmanship of Shri V.S.Jafa a retired civil servant. Here,
again, one of the two members that was to be appointed by COAS was taken from
Corps of Engineers and in turn the committee out sourced the drafting of its report to
a retired Maj Gen of Corps of Engineers by inducting him as Chief Adviser. No
representative of civilian officers was taken on the committee. Being dominated by
officers of Corps of Engineers, the committee side stepped the main issue of
civilianization of MES. It wanted to retain the supremacy of Corps of Engineers but at
the same time was convinced that civilian officers are being unfairly treated. This
consideration made them to recommend an impracticable proposal that there should
be two type of relative seniority between civilian and Army officers i.e. Functional and
Protocol. It recommended that functional seniority of Corps of Engineer officers to be
retained. (Para 16 of chapter 3 refers). At the same time the committee made
following recommendation to boost the morale of civilian officers: (a)
The procedure for initiating preliminary inquiries for alleged
irregularities should be same for Army and civilian officers and must be equable,
forthright and unequivocal. MES regulation may be amended to include this
provision. Further action on officers found guilt could take place under Army
Act or Civil Service rules as the case may be. In 2001 based on suggestion made
by IDSE association, MOD had proposed that Para 101 of RMES be amended to
include such provision. However, E.in.C, obviously to shield Army officers
through Court of Inquiries, did not agree to this (Chapter13 Para 16 &17 refers).
(b)
The proportion of higher appointments is tilted in favour of Army
officers and distribution of post of Chief Engineer and above between Army and
Civilian officers be made in ratio of their number (chapter 14 Para 15). Presently,
there are 4 HAG and 41 SAG level engineer cadre civilian officers against 1 HAG
(additional charge) and 9 SAG (6 additional charge) level army officers while only 1
out of 10 senior most MES appointments is held by a civilian officer.
(c)
The committee recommended creation or post of DG (Projects) to be
manned by HAG civilian officer who is presently posted as ADG DRDO as the later
post need to be abolished due to inadequate load. (Chapter 1 Para 38, 39 & 48).
Instead of accepting this recommendation a post of DG (MAP) that is identical to a
DG (Project) was created and handed over to a SAG level army officer.
(d)
ACRs of civilian officers should be endorsed only at two levels in MES
chain of command to avoid undue pressure from user formations. This
recommendation is in with policy of DOPT but no action has been taken, so far, to
implement it because section dealing with ACRs of civilian officers is controlled by
Army officers.
Historically, there have been several recommendations by various Committees/MOD
in favour of civilian officers which could relieve them from large scale discrimination,
but vested interest of E-in-C and other officers of Corps of Engineers is preventing
there implementation. The fact is that ‘A Committee / MOD proposes and E-in-C
disposes.’
8) Need of the Hour
a) Recommendation made in para 33.15, 33.16, 50.102 and 50.103 of report of
V CPC need to be revisited on Civilianization of MES especially when there is
large scale shortage of officers in the Army.
b) MES, in addition to three wings of Military also serve other defence
departments like DRDO, DGOF, Coast Guards, etc and as such should be
renamed ‘DEFENCE ENGINEER SERVICES’ (DES) as was done in case of
“DEFENCE ESTATE DEPARTMENT” that was earlier known as ‘MILITARY
ESTATE DEPARTMENT’.
c) Rules for induction of Army officers on deputation in MES should be framed
without delay to meet the requirement of statuary rule of SRO 95 and
induction of each officer should have prior approval of cadre controlling
authority. This matter is pending since 1982 when Estimates Committee of
Lok Sabha was assured of such action.
d) Both Army as well as Civilian officers in hierarchy of MES having same Grade
Pay should bear the same designation as being done in DRDO and DGOF i.e.
both a SE and a colonel in staff appointment should be designated as
‘Director’ at Zonal Chief Engineer level. HAG+ officer who should head MES
need to be designated as DG MES, HAG officers as Additional DG and SAG
officers as Jt DG in line with recommendation of V CPC and also to bring
them at par with CPWD. ACRs of both Army and civilian officers should be
initiated and reviewed only by MES authorities.
e) MES should be provided with exclusive head of Apex level who may report to
MOD. Till such time a Apex level officer is available or through up gradation,
Senior Most IDSE officer with special pay should head MES as recommended
in para 50 of report of V CPC. Also a senior IDSE officer be appointed as
ADG(Infra) directly reporting to E-in-C/MOD under whom all CCE’s can be
placed and DGW may continue to look after rest of the works.
f) Four ADG posts given to IDSE cadre have been kept literally in positions
having no substantive role /authority/control except for DG Pers. Vast works
experience of these officers needs to be utilised by entrusting them with the
responsibility of manning appointments of DGW /DG MAP/DDG MAP /DG NE
Infrastructure managing works projects /policy formulation.
g) Army officer of SAG grade dealing Vigilance and Discipline of Civilian officers
should report to DG (Pers) to ensure compliance of MOD letter of April 17 of
2000.
h) MES needs to be brought at par with CPWD as recommended by Estimates
Committee in 1982. Like CPWD its head need to be designated as DG MES.
Being an inter service Organization, separate DG MES HQ should be
established to have full time Head of MES and free E-in-C of its dual role.
This arrangement shall allow senior most civilian officer to officiate as head of
MES in the absence of E-in-C till he remains head of MES. Similar bifurcation
need to be resorted to at Command level to free CE Command of its dual role.
i) A high level committee of Secretaries may be appointed to recommend
reorganization of MES. This committee should not include any member from
Army or Civilian Cadres of MES. Senior retired and serving officers of Corps
of Engineers and Civilian officers of MES may be allowed to put up their views
before this Committee.