Cape Town - Public Works and Infrastructure Patricia de Lille said action has been taken against officials responsible for the Beitbridge border post fencing fiasco.
However, the disciplinary hearing has been put on hold after one official took the department to court to challenge the hearing.
MPs were up in arms late last year after it emerged that the 38km border fence between South Africa and Zimbabwe collapsed.
This was after almost R40 million was allocated for the project.
Some of the parties referred to the fence as the washing line.
Members of the standing committee on public accounts called the department of public works to account for the work.
In a written Parliamentary reply from IFP MP Mthokozisi Nxumalo, De Lille said the hearing against officials was held in March, but it was postponed until April and May.
She said a hearing against members of the bid adjudication committee was held in April and a witness gave evidence there.
The matter was then postponed until June for more evidence.
However, the hearing against the senior officials was set for May but a lawyer for one of the officials filed court action to challenge the disciplinary hearing.
But the department decided to proceed with the hearing as there was no court interdict to prevent it from continuing with the disciplinary process.
“During the hearing one of the official’s legal representative served the chairperson and the department with the court application to review the investigation report and also to stop the disciplinary enquiry.
“As a result thereof the chairperson of the hearing ruled that the disciplinary action is postponed indefinitely pending the finalisation of the court application, because the department will not suffer any prejudice if postponement is granted until finalisation of the court application and that the DPWI may proceed with the disciplinary action if the application is not granted.
“The chairperson further ruled that the court application for the review has a bearing on the current disciplinary action since the directive and the report giving rise to the process is the subject matter of the review and therefore the argument by DPWI that there is no court order prohibiting the continuation of disciplinary enquiry is without valid merits,” said De Lille.