pac-reports-1993-94-contentspapmis.pitb.gov.pk/uploads/downloads/pac-reports/pac1993-1994.pdf ·...

PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-CONTENTS

Report(1993-94)

CONTENTS Preface Abstract Introduction CHAPTER

1. General Observations and Recommendations 2. Appropriation Accounts 3. Agriculture

4. Board of Revenue

5. Communications and Works

6. Cooperatives

7. Education

8. Excise and Taxation

9. Finance

10. Food

11. Forestry, Fisheries, Wildlife and Tourism

12. Health

13. Home

14. Housing, Urban Development and Public Health Engineering

15. Industries and Mineral Development

16. Irrigation and Power

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Contents.htm (1 of 2)12/8/2007 11:10:46 AM

PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-CONTENTS

17. Labour and Manpower

18. Lahore High Court

19. Livestock and Dairy Development

20. Local Government and Rural Development

21. Planning and Development

22. Services and General Administration Department

23. Social Welfare and Punjab Baitul Maal

24. Transport Department

Annexure (Notification)

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Contents.htm (2 of 2)12/8/2007 11:10:46 AM

PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-Preface

Preface Under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the disbursement from the Provincial Consolidated Fund requires approval by the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab. While authorizing huge sums of the tax-payers’ money, the Assembly has a right to reassure itself that the moneys so granted were steered to the intended purpose and were spent prudently and in accordance with law and rules. The Assembly oversees expenditure through its Public Accounts Committees (PACs), on the basis of Appropriation Accounts, Finance Accounts and Audit Reports prepared by the Auditor-General. The said reports are laid in the Assembly under orders of the Governor. 2. As a rule, no money can be spent on any service over and above the money granted by the Assembly for the purpose. Excess expenditure, if any, is viewed seriously. PACs examine, with reference to the facts of each case, the circumstances leading to any excess expenditure, or immoderate savings and make appropriate recommendations. 3. As required under Article 171 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Appropriation Accounts and Finance Accounts of the Government of the Punjab and Reports of the Auditor-General of Pakistan for the year 1993-94 were laid in the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab on 13 October 1997. The Assembly referred the same to Public Accounts Committee-I (PAC-I), for consideration. 4. These, along with the Reports of former and succeeding years remained under consideration of the said PAC-I as well as the ad hoc PAC, from 1998 to 2002. 5. PAC-I, constituted on 14 October 1997, consisted of Raja Muhammad Khalid Khan,(Chairman), Raja Muhammad Javaid Ikhlas, Mr Usman Ibrahim, Mr Zia Ahmad Khan, Haji Ahmad Khan Haral, Haji Muhammad Sharif, Dewan Mushtaq Ahmad, Ch Talib Hussain, Haji Ehsan-ud-Qureshi and Sardar Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari. This Committee considered the reports in a series of meetings. However, the Assembly was placed under suspension with effect from 12 October 1999 under the Proclamation of Emergency and PAC-I ceased to function. 6. At that time, the defunct Public Accounts Committees had been seized of a heavy backlog of Audit Reports. To clear the unfinished work, Governor of the Punjab, pursuant to the powers conferred under Chief Executive of Pakistan letter No.1(74)SO(C-2)/2000, dated 31 July 2000, read with Article 2 of the Powers and Functions of the Governors Order 19(5 of 1999), constituted an ad hoc Public Accounts Committee of the Punjab vide Finance Department Notification No.FD/Acctts:/(A&A)/V-7/69 dated 20 October 2000 (Annexure). 7. The Committee initially consisted of eleven members; viz.- Mr Riyaz Hussain Bokhari (Chairman), Prof (Retd) Dr Khalid Hameed Sheikh, Prof (Retd) Dr Ejaz Ahsan, Major General (Retd) Muhammad Akram, Mr Muzaffar Mahmood Qureshi, Mian Abdul Qayyum, Mr Aftab Ahmad Khan, Ch Muhammad Aslam, Mr Ali Kazim, Mr Muhammad Ahmad Bhatti and Mr Ahmad Raza Khan. However, for personal reasons, Mr Ali Kazim showed his inability to serve on the Committee, and Prof (Retd) Ejaz Ahsan resigned after a few meetings. 8 The Committee decided to finalize the report for the year 1993-94 on the basis of the

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Preface.htm (1 of 2)12/8/2007 11:10:47 AM

PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-Preface

decisions taken by the earlier PAC as well as its deliberations on 29 April, 10, 16, 23 and 30 May 2002. The Committee, in its meeting on 29 August 2002, approved the Report. 9. This Report is arranged in 24 Chapters. Chapter 1 consists of general observations and recommendations of PAC-I; Chapter 2 contains a summary of the deliberations of the PAC about the Appropriation Accounts. The remaining Chapters deal with the audit paras/observations separately arranged for each Department. A synopsis for each department has been added for ready reference. 10. It is hoped that suggestions and recommendations of the Committees would encourage and assist the Government in refurbishing the system and procedure for constructive financial management. (Dr Syed Abul Hassan Najmee)29 August 2002 Secretary Provincial Assembly of the Punjab

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Preface.htm (2 of 2)12/8/2007 11:10:47 AM

PAP-REPORTS-1993-94-Abstract

Abstract

APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS

Total Grants Grants Finally Settled Grants Pended48 23 25

AUDIT PARAS

Total Paras Paras NotedParas Finally

Settled

Paras Conditionally

Settled

Paras Pended

2170 103 286 638 1143

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Abstract.htm12/8/2007 11:10:47 AM

PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-Introduction

Introduction Among the tasks entrusted to the ad hoc Public Accounts Committee (PAC) constituted in October 2000, is to deal with the unfinished business of the Standing Committees on Public Accounts of the suspended Assembly of the Punjab. The PAC is required to clear the backlog of Audit Reports passed on to it and to submit to the Finance Minister for approval the recommendations made by the previous PACs. 2. The Provincial Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee-I considered the Appropriation Accounts and the Auditor General’s Report on the Accounts (1993-94) of the Government of the Punjab; however, it ceased to function on the suspension of the Assembly on 12 October 1999. 3. To clear the backlog, the ad hoc PAC considered the report on the Accounts (1993-94) in its special meetings. Based on the minutes of the meetings of the previous PAC as well as those of the present ad hoc PAC, the Report on the Accounts (1993-94) has now been compiled. 4. In its meeting held on 29 August 2002, the ad hoc PAC approved the submission of the Report to the Finance Minister. 5. It is recommended that the Departments and Organizations concerned should take note of the various directives and suggestions in this Report. Appropriate action should be initiated for the improvement of financial discipline and for the enforcement of strict accountability. The monitoring wing of the Finance Department may watch and report on the compliance of the directives. 6. The ad hoc PAC avails itself of this opportunity to place on record its deep appreciation of the hard work put in and dedication displayed by the Assembly’s Secretariat in assisting the Committee and compiling the Report. (Riyaz H. Bokhari)29 August 2002 Chairman Ad hoc Public Accounts Committee

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Introduction.htm12/8/2007 11:10:47 AM

PAP-REPORTS-1993-94-General Observations and Recommendation

General Observations and Recommendations While considering the pending Audit Reports, PAC-I made a number of general observations and recommendations. These are reproduced below:- 2. Audit Objections: PAC-I viewed with concern the impassive practice of attending to the audit objections/paras only after a meeting of the PAC was fixed. The Committee directed that Government must ensure that the departments –

(a) take action to settle an audit objection at the earliest opportunity; and (b) review, at regular interval, the progress of all the pending audit paras.

3. Working Papers: Many departments did not assign due priority to the work of the Committee. The working papers for the meetings had, at times, been inadequate as well as sketchy. They were also submitted as late as a day or two before, or even on the day of the meeting. The members of the Committee did not have time to examine the same. The Committee directed that –

(a) the departments/agencies should submit the appropriate working papers at least ten days before the meeting; and (c) the working papers must contain full facts and latest position of the case; and should be authenticated by the Head of the Department.

4. Use of official vehicles: The PAC observed that the Government of the Punjab may consider to allow all the Deputy Secretaries to the use of Government vehicles for official purpose in view of the onerous official duties being performed by them. 5. Advances given to WAPDA, T&T and Sui Gas Departments: The PAC observed that the Punjab Government should take up the matter with the Federal Government for the adjustment of outstanding advances. 6. Directives of the PACs and Compliance Paras: It was observed that most of the administrative departments had not taken timely action on the directives of the PACs. That inordinately delayed the disposal of the audit paras as well as the finalization of reports. Moreover, in a number of cases, audit paras were settled subject to certain actions to be taken by the concerned departments. Unfortunately, the departments had not cared to take the requisite action, with the result that such paras could not be finally settled. Government should take measures so that the directives of the PACs are implemented expeditiously and in all cases within the time given to the departments. Moreover, the departments should create audit cells from within the existing sanctioned strength effectively to handle the PAC work. The follow up action on the decision of PAC must be completed by the concerned Departments/

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/gor.htm (1 of 2)12/8/2007 11:10:47 AM

PAP-REPORTS-1993-94-General Observations and Recommendation

agencies before the date of the next meeting. 7. Casual attitude before the PACs: It was observed that the administrative secretaries either did not appear before the Committee personally, or, even when they attended the meetings, they were not prepared for the same. That is why they brought with them the whole train of officers/officials. During the meetings, they were often obliged to seek the assistance of their subordinates, sometimes at a very low level. The practice was not only inappropriate but it also involved huge public expense in the form of TA/DA. Government must take corrective steps in this behalf. It was further directed that the Administrative Secretaries should reconcile matters with the Audit Department much before the date of the meeting of the Committee. 8. Disciplinary Action: The Committee observed that the departmental action was not taken even in cases of gross financial irregularity, fraud or defalcation; and, the departments simply slept over the matter after having casually referred such cases to the Anti-Corruption Department or to the Police. Disciplinary action against the defaulting District Accounts Officers and Divisional Accounts Officers, too, had not been taken by the Finance Department/Accountant General in spite of repeated directives of the Committee. The Committee directed the Departments to complete the disciplinary action against the defaulting officers/officials including District Accounts Officers and Divisional Accounts Officers within two months. 9. Suspense Account: The Committee directed that the Finance Department shall constitute a Committee consisting of D.G. Accounts (Works), Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Power Department, and representatives of Public Health, C&W and Finance Departments. The said Committee shall examine the operation of Suspense Accounts and submit a comprehensive report on the operation and maintenance of this Head to the Committee for further consideration. Additional Secretary, Finance (Monitoring) shall coordinate and arrange the meetings of the said Committee.

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/gor.htm (2 of 2)12/8/2007 11:10:47 AM

PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS

APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS

(1993-94)Overview

Total No. of Grants Settled Pended48 23 25

AbstractStatus Number and Title of Grant Details

Grants Finally Settled

231. Opium 2. Land Revenue 3. Provincial Excise 4. Stamps 5. Forest 6. Registration 8. Other Taxes & Duties 18. Agriculture 19. Fisheries 20. Veterinary 21. Co-operation 22. Industries 25. Communications 26. H&PP 28. Pensions 29. Stationery & Printing 30. Subsidies 32. Civil Defence 33. State Trading in Food Grain and Sugar 34. Schemes of State Trading in Medical Stores & Coal 38. Agriculture Improvement & Research 39. Industrial Development Nil–Floating Debt

Table I

Grants Pended

25

7. Charges on account of Motor Vehicles Act 9. Irrigation & Land Reclamation 10. General Administration (c)+(v) 11. Administration of Justice (c)+(v) 12. Jails and Convict Settlements 13. Police 14. Museums 15. Education 16. Health Services 17. Public Health 23. Miscellaneous 24. Civil Works (c)+(v) 27. Relief 31. Miscellaneous 35. Loans to Government Servants 36. Development 37. Irrigation Works 40. Town Development 41. Roads and Bridges 42. Government Buildings 43. Loans to Municipalities and Autonomous Bodies Nil–Permanent Debt Nil–Repayment of Loans from Federal Government Nil–Interest on Debt and other obligations Nil–Privy Purses

Table II

TABLE I

Grants SettledThe following Grants were settled either because the saving was within the permissible limit or the explanation of the Department for higher saving was accepted –

Grant No & Title Final Grant Expenditure Saving/Excess Remarks1. Opium 955,780

955,670 (-) 110(0.01%)

Minutes dated 12-1-1999, issued vide No. PAC (93-94)/99/5994 dated 8-4-1999.

2. Land Revenue 334,676,510

330,543,172

(-) 4,133,338(1.24%)

Minutes dated 3-4-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/98/9854 dated 1-6-1998.

3. Provincial Excise 42,513,110

40,503,140 (-) 2,009,970(4.73%)


4. Stamps 17,226,410

16,510,566 (-) 715,844(4.16%)


5. Forest 301,759,220

300,495,253 (-) 1,263,967(0.42%)


6. Registration 7,669,500

7,116,628 (-) 552,872(7.21%)


8. Other Taxes and Duties 67,756,320

67,687,334 (-) 68,986(0.10%)

Minutes dated 3-8-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/88/1480 dated 23-9-1988 and Minutes dated 12-1-1999, issued vide No. PAC (93-94)/99/5994 dated 8-4-1999.

1,037,157,040 998,967,709 (-) 38,189,331

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/AA.htm (1 of 4)12/8/2007 11:10:48 AM


18. Agriculture *1,037,157,040

*1,001,831,447

(3.68%)*(-) 35,325,593(3.40%)


19. Fisheries 62,023,080

57,071,015

(-) 4,952,065(3.68%)


20. Veterinary 487,482,400

464,059,397

(-) 23,423,003(7.98%)

Minutes dated 3-8-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/88/1480 dated 23-9-1988 and Minutes dated 11-1-1999, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/88/5997 dated 8-4-1999.

21. Co-operation 119,690,770

117,438,419 (-) 2,252,351(1.88%)


22. Industries 128,990,110

122,870,164 (-) 6,119,946(4.74%)


25. Communications 1,210,605,200

1,087,474,287 (-) 123,130,913(10.17%)


26. Housing &PP 165,971,110 81,359,692 (-) 84,611,418(50.97%)


28. Pensions 3,369,225,000

2,879,730,335 (-) 489,494,665(14.52%)


29. Stationery & Printing 86,539,110

61,853,091 (-) 24,686,019(28.53%)


30. Subsidies 1,347,340,000

– (-) 1,347,340,000(100%)


32. Civil Defence 24,064,210

23,260,251 (-) 803,959(3.34%)


33. State Trading in Food Grain & Sugar

(c)

(v)

468,053,900

455,383,705 (-) 12,670,195(2.71%)


13,663,409,910 8,799,436,005 (-) 4,863,973,905(13.64%)


34. Schemes of State Trading in Medical Stores & Coal

113,389,480

100,387,200 (-) 13,002,280(114.16%)


38. Agriculture Improvement & Research

19,584,390

15,059,067 (-) 4,525,323(23.10%)


39. Industrial Development 2,376,000

10,241 (-) 2,365,759(99.57%)


Nil. Floating Debt 9,747,542,700

8,745,081,910 (-) 1,002,460,790(10.28%)


TABLE IIGrants Pended

The following Grants were either partly settled, or settled subject to reconciliation, or pended, or not discussed, as indicated against each –Grant No & Title Final Grant Expenditure Saving/Excess Remarks

7. Charges on account of Motor Vehicles Act

24,770,910 21,103,812 (-) 3,667,098(14.80%)

Partly settled. Minutes dated 12-1-1999, issued vide No. PAC (93-94)/99/5994 dated 8-4-1999.

9. Irrigation and Land Reclamation

3,385,384,610 2,372,467,646 (-) 1,012,916,964(29.92%)


10. General Admn.

(v) 2,237,889,330 1,708,143,376 (-) 529,745,954(23.67%)




(c) 72,110,680 *64,257,830

59,643,489 *59,643,489

(-) 12,467,191(17.29%)*4,614,341(7.18%)

Minutes dated 8-3-1999, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/88/6662 dated 4-5-1999 and Minutes dated 8-1-2001, issued vide No. Ad hoc PAC/2000/265 dated 20-1-2001.

11. Admn. of Justice (c)

104,971,430

101,612,114 (-) 3,359,316(3.20%)


(v) 268,990,140

255,416,789 (-) 13,573,351(5.05%)


12. Jails and Convict Settlements

330,194,840

314,923,666 (-) 15,271,174(4.62%)


13. Police 4,170,006,620

3,976,318,250

(-) 193,688,370(4.64%)


14. Museums 6,823,310

6,223,987 (-) 599,323(8.78%)

Not discussed.

15. Education 14,249,623,110

13,247,347,495 (-) 1,002,275,615(7.03%)

Partly settled. Minutes dated 1-9-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/98/2102 dated 23-10-1998 and Minutes dated 13-2-1999, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/98/5996 dated 8-4-1999.

16. Health Services 3,892,375,010 3,275,965,139 (-) 616,409,871(15.84%)


17. Public Health 338,848,410

295,117,676

(-) 43,730,734(0.01%)


23. Miscellaneous 421,874,560

371,067,007 (-) 50,807,553(12.04%)


24. Civil Works (v) 852,353,110

691,219,573 (-) 161,133,537(18.90%)


(c) 3,000,000

1,694,684 (-) 1,305,316(43.51%)


27. Relief 18,729,900

18,540,277 (-) 189,623(1.01%)

Not discussed

31. Miscellaneous 735,129,910

602,778,572 (-) 132,351,338(18.01%)


35. Loans to Govt. Servants 5,000

– (-) 5,000(100%)

Not discussed

36. Development Forest

3,765,911,410

2,943,348,307 (-) 822,563,103(21.84%)

Partly settled. Minutes dated 3-8-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/88/1480 dated 23-9-1998, Minutes dated 11-11-1999, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/99/5997 dated 8-4-1999 and Minutes dated 2-3-1999, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/99/7027 dated 18-5-1999.

58,964,600 57,415,027 (+) 1,549,573(2.62%)

Pending. Minutes dated 11-5-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/98/10039 dated 10-6-1998.

37. Irrigation Works 621,469,000

684,109,091 (+) 62,359,909(10.03%)

Partly settled. Minutes dated 5-10-1998, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/98/3126 dated 4-12-1998.

40. Town Development 2,100,000

4,452,818 (+) 2,352,818(112.03%)

Pending. Minutes dated 4-1-1999, issued vide No. PAC/93-94/98/5966 dated 7-4-1999.

41. Roads and Bridges 1,779,900,010

1,971,414,503 (+) 191,514,493(10.76%)


42. Government Buildings 3,018,818,010

1,555,696,732 (-) 1,463,121,278(48.47%)


43. Loans to Municipalities, Autonomous Bodies

848,551,690

772,794,941 (-) 75,756,749(8.93%)


Nil. Permanent Debt (c)106,914,000

95,955,270 (-) 10,958,730(10.25%)




Nil. Repayment of Loans from the Federal Govt.

(c)1,157,663,000

1,156,749,514 (-) 913,486(0.07%)

Not discussed.

Nil. Interest on Debt & other obligations

(c)11,881,590,000

11,945,094,715 (+) 63,504,715(0.53%)


Nil. Privy Purses (c)9,600,000

(-) 9,600,000(100%)

Not discussed.


PAC-REPORTS-1993-94-AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

Agriculture DepartmentOverview

Total Paras Civil Commercial117 49 68

AbstractStatus Decision Para Nos. Total

Paras Noted

48

The paras were noted because these contained statement of Accounts.

Commercial: 3, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81.

48

Paras Finally Settled

34

Paras finally settled as the requisite action had been taken.

Civil: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 1.11(ii), 1.11(iii), 1.13, 1.15, 1.17, 1.19, 1.20, 2.1(1), 2.1(2), 2.3(1), 2.3(2), 2.4(1), 2.4(2), 2.4(3), 2.4(4), 2.4(5), 2.4(6), 2.4(8), 2.4(9), 2.4(10), 2.4(11), 2.4(12), 2.4(13), 2.5, 2.6(1), 2.6(2), 2.7, 2.8, 15.1(Transferred from Irrigation)

34

Paras Conditionally

Settled

35

Paras settled with the direction that the Department shall implement the directives of the Committee and the Finance Department shall monitor the same. Both the Departments shall report compliance to the Public Accounts Committee every six months.

Civil: 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11(i), 1.12, 1.14, 1.16, 1.18, 1.21, 1.22(1), 1.22(2), 2.2, 2.4(7).

15

Commercial: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 38, 46, 52, 53, 57, 65, 69, 74, 78,

20

Discussed on 2 April, 11 May, 10 September 1998, 29 April and 30 May 2002

Civil Audit

1. Para 1.1: Page 32 – Overpayment of Rs.224,175 on Account of Incorrect Rate of Loose Stone Walls Audit had observed: “The Director, Soil Conservation, Rawalpindi, approved the rate of

file:///E|/PAC%20Reports/pac/report1993-94/Agriculture.htm (1 of 39)12/8/2007 11:10:51 AM


100-cft of loose stone wall @ Rs.385 vide his letter No.2020-22, dated 21st February, 1991. But the payment was made @ Rs.585 per 100 cft and @ Rs.765 per 100 cft for hard soil without any authority in the schedule of rates as a result of which the overpayment to the above extent was made.” 2-4-98: A Committee consisting of representative each of Audit, Finance Department and Administrative Department, to probe into the matter and submit its report to the Public Accounts Committee in the next meeting. The para was kept pending.10-9-98: The Department explained that as per decision of PAC I dated 2-4-98 the Departmental Committee consisting of representatives from Audit, Finance Department and Administrative Department probed into the matter and concluded that overpayment of only a sum of Rs.4,941 and Rs.444 was made. The same had been recovered and deposited with the Government. The said Committee had also recommended the para for settlement. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the recommendations of the Committee and settled the para. 2. Para 1.2: Page 32 – Misappropriation of Rice & Maize Worth Rs.88,173 Audit had observed: “17189 KG rice and 5014 KG maize were stored in godown. After locking the store/godown the storekeeper absconded. Store was opened on 8th November, 1992 in the presence of the Magistrate. 13071 KG rice and 4147 KG Maize valuing Rs.88,482 were found short. The loss needs to be made good from the Storekeeper and the Officer Incharge, and disciplinary action taken against them”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that the concerned storekeeper Mr. Zaffar Ullah had absconded since long along with all the store books. His services were terminated during his absence. The store was got un-locked in the presence of a Magistrate and the rice paddy recovered from the store was auctioned for Rs.19,565. FIR had also lodged with the police. The accused storekeeper had not so far been arrested. Departmental inquiry was also conducted which concluded that the then Deputy Director (Retd), Sahiwal and Rana Javed Extra Assistant Director, Agriculture were also responsible for negligence in proper supervision. The Government had formed a Committee to probe into all such issues. Action against these officers would be taken on receipt of the report of the inquiry Committee. The Public Accounts Committee kept the item pending with the direction that inquiry may be completed and action be taken against the Deputy Director and Extra Assistant Director Agriculture concerned within two months. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –

The Department shall implement the directive of the PAC dated 10 September 1998 by 30 September 2002, and report compliance to the Finance Department, the Assembly Secretariat and Audit. Finance Department shall monitor the implementation of the directive of the PAC.

3. Para 1.3: Page 33 – Misappropriation of Surplus Material of Previous Year Not Received Back Worth Rs.34,862



Audit had observed: “The surplus material valuing the stated amount after the finalization of civil works issued on watercourses during the year 1992-93, completion report of which was verified by NESPAK Engineers was neither received back nor value recovered. As such construction material issued on watercourses in excess of actual requirement/consumption was not available at site and had been mis appropriated. Recovery is stressed.”2-4-98: The Department explained that material valuing Rs.26,722 had been received back. The cost of remaining un-traceable material valuing Rs.8,140 had been recovered from the water users Association and deposited into Government Treasury. The Committee directed the Department to produce the relevant record to Audit for verification. The para was however, settled subject to verification. 10-9-98: The Department explained that material worth Rs.25,810 had been received back and recovery of Rs.9,052 had also been effected. The position had also been verified by Audit. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the explanation and settled the para. 4. Para 1.4: Page 33 – Misappropriation of Rs.40,545 on Account of Installation of 20 Nakkas Due to Incorrect Volume Audit had observed: “As per PC-I, the criteria for the construction of watercourses as published in the hand book of the Ministry of Food & Agriculture on June 1980 was to be followed. In PC-I the calculation of volume of 20 Nakkas was shown as 0.52 for which no document for adopting this volume was produced except a field book purchased from the open market which did not bear any official authority. The Ministry of Food & Agriculture in their Field Manual Vol-V published in December 1980 had laid down volume of this nakkas as 0.441, therefore, PC-I should have been based on this volume instead of 0.52. The Department in the completion report of watercourse No.44888/R relating to Water Management Specialist, Sangla Hill had claimed the volume of this size of Nakkas equal to 0.46 which is indicative of the fact that the volume of these Nakkas as adopted by the Food & Agriculture Ministry is correct and workable in the field, hence value for Rs.40,545 were claimed in excess of permissible rates.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that according to PC-I and other project documents the criteria for construction of watercourses contained in “National standard specification and practices of Ministry of Food and Agriculture June 1980 would be followed in execution of Civil Works. According to PC-I duly approved by ECNEC the volume of 20 “Nakkas” could be up to the level of 0.54 cm The actual volume was to be calculated as per physical verification to be conducted by NESPAK Engineers. The volume as verified by consultants had since been claimed which was also on the lower side i.e. 0.52 instead of 0.54 on actual basis. As such there was no deviation of standards & specification. The volume was claimed on actual basis and the same was also verified by the NESPAK Engineers. As such no misappropriation was involved. The explanation of the Department was accepted and the para was settled.



5. Para 1.5: Page 34 – Misappropriation of Rs.32,930 Audit had observed: “The stated amount was drawn from the Government Treasury and paid to the persons, whose appointment orders were found bogus”.10-9-98: The Department explained that bogus appointments of Beldars were detected who were paid their salaries up to 28.2.93. The bogus appointees were handed over to the police. Later on they were released on bail. The Public Accounts Committee kept the para pending and directed the Department to conduct a thorough inquiry and fix responsibility as to who was responsible for the bogus appointments. The defaulter may be proceeded against under E & D Rules. Moreover total amount of Rs.32,929 which was drawn fraudulently from the Government Treasury may also be recovered from the defaulters, after due process. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –


6. Para 1.6: Page 35 – Recovery of Rs.1,495,185 From Punjab Seed Corporation, Lahore on Account of Expenditure Incurred on Purchase of Seeds Audit had observed: “The stated amount was released out of National Oil Seed Development Project to Punjab Seed Corporation during 1990-91 to 1992-93 for purchase of seeds fertilizer and pesticides etc. The seeds were processed in Punjab Seed Corporation Office Sahiwal and sold to farmers on profit. Sale proceeds were deposited into Corporation accounts instead of Government accounts. As clarified by the National Oil Seed Development Project Food & Agriculture Division Islamabad in their letter No.IF11-1/90-OSC dated 3rd February, 1994 the amount should have been deposited into Government Treasury.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that according to the revised PC-I of National Oil Seed Development Project a sum of Rs.3,881,000 was provided for seed procurement and placed the said sum of Rs.38,81,000 (including the amount of Rs.1,495,185 under objection) at the disposal of Seed Corporation for procurement of seed for the project period and the sale proceeds were to be utilised as working capital for further procurements of seeds after the project period by the PSC and the same was not to be returned to the Government as contended by Audit. The explanation was accepted by the Committee and the para was settled.

7. Para 1.7: Page 35 – Excess Expenditure Over and Above the Budget Allocation – Rs.368,175



Audit had observed: “Expenditure to the above extent was incurred in excess of budget allocation for 1992-93 in violation of the provisions of Rule 17-15 of PFR Vol-I”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that actual excess expenditure was Rs.345,175 out of which excess of Rs.103,247 pertained to the head pay and allowances. It occurred due to filling of posts by transfer of officers/officials who were drawing higher salaries than those calculated in the P.C-I of the project. The excess of Rs.237,370 had occurred due to the fact that against the actual requirement of Rs.3,27,800 the Finance Department released only a sum of Rs.62,780 while the expenditure had already been incurred in anticipation of the release of actual funds. The Public Accounts Committee kept the para pending and directed the Department to move a case to Finance Department for regularization of excess expenditure. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –

The Department shall implement the directive of the PAC dated 10 September 1998 by 30 September 2002, and report compliance to the Assembly Secretariat and Audit. Finance Department shall monitor the implementation of the directive of the PAC.

8. Para 1.8: Page 36 – Expenditure of Rs.1,386,300 on Pay and Allowances Incurred in Excess of Budget Provisions of 1992-93 Audit had observed: “Oil Seed Development Project is a World Bank Aided Project and being implemented by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food & Agriculture, Islamabad. The budget for pay and allowances for the staff employed in the project at Punjab is released by Federal Government which is deposited against Punjab Provincial Government Account. Administrative approval for the same account is issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Department during 1992-93. Expenditure of Rs.1,386,300 was incurred in excess of budget provision.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that an amount of Rs.4,308,873 (including the amount of Rs.1,386,300) which was over drawn from the Government had since been deposited into the account of Government in consultation with the Finance Department. The contention of the Department was endorsed by Audit. The Committee accepted the explanation and the para was settled. 9. Para 1.9: Page 37 – Un-Justified Reappropriation of Funds During 1992-93 Worth Rs.119,340 Audit had observed: “The re-appropriation of the stated amount was made by the Agriculture Chemist (SF), Bahawalpur vide his letter No.563-Budget, & No.564 dated 14th June, 1993. In accordance with S.No.5(18) of Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1990 it was specifically mentioned that no reappropriation will be made out of budgetary allocation under head “Electricity, POL, Gas & Telephone charges” without the prior approval of Finance Department. Both the orders of the Agriculture Chemist were irregular and unjustified



which needs to be got regularized from the Finance Department”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that D.D.O. concerned had been reverted from the post of A.C. (SF). The case was under investigation by an officer to fix responsibility for the irregularity. The PAC kept the para pending and directed the Department to complete the inquiry at the earliest and fix responsibility. The defaulter may be proceeded against for disciplinary action under the rules. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –


10. Para 1.10: Page 37 – Irregular and Un-Justified Payment to Daily Paid Labour Worth Rs.145,190 Audit had observed: “The stated amount was paid to daily paid labor from 1989-90 to 1992-93, against “NIL” budget in Code-03700-Contingent Staff. The year-wise break-up was as under:-

1989-90 Rs.17,206 1990-91 Rs.30,231 1991-92 Rs.48,080 1992-93 Rs.49,672

Moreover, Finance Department vide their letter No. EXP(G) 11-22/92, dated 25th August, 1992, imposed complete ban on appointment of contingent paid staff during 1992-93. However, Agriculture Chemist somehow maneuvered to get the bill passed probably by incorporating fictitious appropriation of budget in the bills”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that D.D.O. concerned had been reverted from the post of A.C. (SF). The case was under investigation by an officer to fix responsibility for the irregularity. The PAC kept the para pending and directed the Department to complete the inquiry at the earliest and fix responsibility. The defaulter may be proceeded against for disciplinary action under the rules. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the committee settled the para subject to the following direction –




11. Para 1.11 (i): Page 38 – Less Deposit of Sale Proceeds of Farm Produce Worth Rs.278,665 (This item Rs.220,085) Audit had observed: “A sum of Rs.1,434,711 was realized by the Incharge Agriculture Farm, Sahiwal during July 1990 to June 1993 as sale proceeds of Wheat, Bhoosa and Rice, a sum of Rs.1,156,045 has been deposited into Government Treasury. The remaining balance of Rs.278,665 had not been found deposited into Government treasury violating the Rule 4.1 of P.F.R. Vol-I. The amount be recovered and appropriate action taken against the persons held responsible.” 10-9-98: The Department explained that an amount of Rs.72,594 had been recovered and deposited into the Government treasury. The balance of Rs.147,491 had been adjusted against the cost of seed of different crops received from Punjab Seed Corporation. The Public Accounts Committee settled the para subject to verification of adjustment of Rs.147,491 by Audit. 12. Para 1.11 (ii): Page 38 – Less Deposit of Sale Proceeds of Farm Produce Worth Rs.278,665 (This item Rs.51,101) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.11 above. 10-9-98: The Department explained that total amount of Rs.51,101 had been recovered and got verified by Audit. The PAC settled the para. 13. Para 1.11 (iii): Page 38 – Less Deposit of Sale Proceeds of Farm Produce Worth Rs.278,665 (This item Rs.6,979) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.11 above. 10-9-98: The Department explained that total amount of Rs.7,779 had been recovered and got verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and settled the para. 14. Para 1.12: Page 38 – Advance Drawal of Rs.34,685 Audit had observed: “The stated amount was drawn in advance in contravention of provisions of Rule 2.10(b) (5) read with 17-19 of PFR Vol-I from code 51300-POL and 52200-Telephone respectively without the sanction of the Competent Authority. The expenditure of the stated amount was incurred on P.O.L. against the budget allocation of Rs.10,000 which was violation of instructions of Finance Department issued vide their letter No.EXP(G)11-22/92 dated 25 August 1992 in which it was specifically mentioned that consumption of P.O.L. was to be economized”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that D.D.O. concerned had been reverted from the post of A.C. (SF). The case was being investigated by an officer to fix responsibility for the irregularity. The PAC kept the para pending and directed the Department to complete the



inquiry at the earliest and fix responsibility. The defaulter may be proceeded against for disciplinary action under the rules. Finance Department was also directed to proceed against the District Accounts Officer concerned for not exercising the proper Audit check. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –


15. Para 1.13: Page 39 – Payment of Rs.53,388 for Pay & Allowances to Tubewell, Machine & Tractor Operators Without Work Audit had observed: “Under PC-I of the Punjab Agriculture Ext. and Adoptive Research Project Phase-II, Establishment of Agriculture Farm was planned at D.G. Khan and for this purpose office of the Deputy Director (SS) Agronomy at D.G. Khan was set up with the posts of Tubewell Operator, Machine & Tractor Operators for the maintenance of agriculture farm. The holders of these posts were paid Rs.53,388 as pay and allowances during 1991-92 inspite of the fact that no agriculture farm existed and the officials remained without work”. 10-9-98: The PAC accepted the explanation of the Department and settled the para. 16. Para 1.14: Page 39 – Irregular Repair of Vehicle No.LHH-3549 – Rs.41,236 Audit had observed: “The stated amount was received by Mr Muhammad Sarwar on account of repair of vehicle No. LHH-3549 on 17th June, 1993. All the 20 actual payees receipts were not available on record, as required vide Rule 8.5 of PFR Vol-I. Against the budget allocation of Rs.5000 an amount of Rs.41,236 was incurred without getting it re-appropriated. The estimates submitted by firms were converted into cash memo. The repair in excess of Rs.1,500 was not got vetted in contravention of Services General Administration and Information Department circular letter No.TR(SO-11)9-2/75, dated 11 March 1980. The quotations were not available in record. The alteration in figures was also noticed. Matter needs investigation and fixing of responsibility under intimation to Audit”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that D.D.O. concerned had been reverted from the post of A.C. (SF). The case was being investigated by an officer to fix responsibility for the irregularity. The PAC kept the para pending and directed the Department to complete the inquiry at the earliest and fix responsibility. The defaulter may be proceeded against for disciplinary action under the rules. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –

The Department shall implement the directive of the PAC dated 10 September 1998



by 30 September 2002, and report compliance to the Finance Department, the Assembly Secretariat and Audit. Finance Department shall monitor the implementation of the directive of the PAC.

17. Para 1.15: Page 40 – Irregular Expenditure of Rs.1,071,275 Audit had observed: “The stated amount was spent on account of pay and allowances for officers and the field staff, sanctioned for development on Fish Nursery Units yet to be established in eight Administrative Divisions of the Punjab. Posts were filled in by appointment of staff on adhoc basis. The matter requires investigation disciplinary action against the officers responsible for such type of appointments. Necessity for regularization of expenditure is stressed. Recruitment of staff in anticipation of functioning of the units, resulted in wasteful expenditure.” 11-5-98: The Department explained that staff was appointed on the Fish Nursery Units strictly according to the approved PC-1 of the project with the clearance by the Finance Department. Also the appointment of the staff was the requirement of Asian Development Bank who sponsored the project and provided matching grant. Explanation of the Department was accepted and the para was settled. 18. Para 1.16: Page 40 – Purchase of Furniture Worth Rs.134,575 Audit had observed: “The purchase of furniture and refrigerators to the above extent was made which was not admitted in Audit due to following reasons:-

(i) The NOC in respect of furniture was not obtained from Government Wood Work Centre, Gujrat. (ii) Sanction of the Competent Authority Agriculture Chemist, Soil & Water Testing Laboratory being an officer of category-IV was competent to sanction expenditure up to Rs.1,000 only. (iii) Department was liable to observe the financial rule while spending the government money. Expenditure beyond competency was a serious financial indiscipline.

The expenditure was to be got regularized from Finance Department”. 10-9-98: The Department explained that Departmental action against the D.D.O. concerned was under process. The PAC kept the para pending for regularization of irregular expenditure and action against the D.D.O. concerned. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –

The Department shall implement the directive of the PAC dated 10 September 1998 by 30 September 2002, and report compliance to the Assembly Secretariat and Audit. Finance Department shall monitor the implementation of the directive of the PAC.



19. Para 1.17: Page 41 – Non return of surplus Material valuing Rs.381,285 Audit had observed: “The surplus material valuing the stated amount after renovation of watercourses was neither received back in store nor the cost thereof was recovered after lapse of period of more than a year.”2-4-98: The Department explained that actual amount involved was Rs.5,62,034 instead of Rs.3,81,285 as reported by Audit. Anyhow, the concerned farmers were liable to transport back the surplus material left over at the site of work. All out efforts were made to collect back the surplus material in good condition from 58 watercourses and to recover the cost of material not traceable or damaged at site of work from the farmers. As result either the material was received back or cost thereof was recovered as detailed below:

(i) Accountal of Material Rs. 130,067 (ii) Cost recovery Rs. 45,227 (iii) Material Consumed and verified Rs. 386,740 Total: Rs. 562,034

Audit apprised the Committee that the Departmental authorities had reduced the quantity of bricks valuing Rs.125,000 by over-writing made in the original entry of the record. This reduction in quantity of bricks was required to be explained as the Department had not been able to support the over-writing with documentary proof. The Committee took serious notice of over-writing and held that it tentamounted to tampering of record. The Department was directed to inquire into the matter of overwriting and fix responsibility and take action against the defaulter. The Department was also directed to get the recovery of Rs.45,227 verified by Audit. The para was kept pending. 10-9-98: The Department explained that matter with regard to over writing was probed into by a Departmental Inquiry Committee which concluded that no overwriting was made in payment vouchers and payment was made according to actual receipt of bricks. The overwriting was made in the stock register to correct the figures in accordance with the actual receipt of bricks. The amount of Rs.45,227 had also been recovered and deposited into Govt. Treasury. The position had also been verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and settled the para. 20. Para 1.18: Page 42 – Purchase of Medicines Worth Rs.70,000 Without Immediate Requirement Audit had observed: “Project Director purchased Ovaprim 10 MP Vials as detailed below from M/s Khakan Enterprises, Lahore.

(i) 50 Vials on 25th May 1993 @ Rs.700 each Rs. 35,000 (ii) 50 Vials on 29th August 1993 @ Rs.700 each. Rs. 35,000 Rs. 70,000

The purchase was made without immediate requirement as the same remained un-used for more than one year. Apart from this, huge balance of 327 vials was available in stock



which was imported form Canada under U.N.D.P. The purchase was therefore, contrary to the provision of Rules 15.18 of P.F.R. Vol-I. Matter requires investigation and regularization of expenditure from Finance Department.” 11-5-98: The Department explained that ovaprim “a hormone” being an absolutely essential drug for induced breeding of fish was procured as per total requirement of fish nursery units in the Punjab. The drug was manufactured by a Canadian firm and there was only one sole agent in Pakistan for its import. In view of such a position the drug was purchased. The Department was directed to produce the consumption record along with other relevant record to Audit for verification. The para was settled subject to verification of record by Audit. 21. Para 1.19: Page 42 – Outstanding Recovery of Rs. 62,640 on Account of Supply of Motor Cycles (Hire Purchase Basis) to Officers of the Project (Extension) Audit had observed: “The stated amount is outstanding against the Officers who obtained the motor cycles out of project funds under hire and purchase system. Recovery has been stopped due to the reasons, because of their transfer to other offices/proceeding abroad or on Ex-Pakistan leave etc.” 10-9-98: The Department explained that the outstanding amount of Rs. 62,640 had been recovered and verified by Audit. The PAC settled the para. 22. Para 1.20: Page 43 – Outstanding Amounts Against Tenants – Rs.31,445 Audit had observed: “A scrutiny of Tenant’s Ledger revealed that the stated amount was outstanding against tenants since long. The amounts made to be recovered from the concerned without further loss of time.” 10-9-98: The Department apprised the Public Accounts Committee that total amount of Rs.31,445 had been recovered and verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and settled the para. 23. Para 1.21: Page 43 – Doubtful Purchase of Stock Articles Worth Rs.58,829 Audit had observed: “The stock entries of various stock articles for the stated amount were not made which is in contravention of provision of Rule 15.4(a) PFR Vol-I. The payments of Rs.25,750, Rs.47,809, Rs.23,683 and Rs.4,615 received by Mr Muhammad Sarwar, Agriculture Chemist, DDO. In case there were bona fide other parties to whom the payment was to be made, receipts should have been obtained from such parties as required under Rule 8.5 of PFR Vol-I”.



10-9-98: The Department explained that D.D.O. concerned had been reverted from the post of A.C. (SF). The case was being investigated by an officer to fix responsibility for the irregularity. The PAC kept the para pending and directed the Department to complete the inquiry at the earliest and fix responsibility. The defaulter may be proceeded against for disciplinary action under the rules. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –


24. Para 1.22 (1): Page 44 – Non-Deduction/Less Deduction of Income Tax – Rs.57,477 (This Item Rs.21,805) Audit had observed: “According to the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue from time to time the authority making payments out of public funds for contracted goods or services rendered within a financial year, was required to deduct income tax at prescribed rate i.e. 3% from contractors and 2.5% from general suppliers under Sr. No.2 contained in Column No.3 of the Summary of Income Tax in Section 50(4) of Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Contrary to this Provision, Income Tax in some cases was not/less deducted. This was pointed out during audit of accounts for the year 1992-93. Necessity for recovery of Income Tax is stressed.” 10-9-98: The Department explained that a sum of Rs, 17,428 (13413+1810+2205) had been recovered. Advance tax of Rs.1,468 was not recoverable as the payment was less than the prescribed limit. Advance tax of Rs.2,909 was not recoverable as the supplier firm had produced an exemption certificate from the Central Board of Revenue. The PAC settled the item subject to verification of record by Audit relating to deduction of Income Tax through contingent bills. 25. Para 1.22 (2): Page 44 – Non-Deduction/Less Deduction of Income Tax – Rs.57,477 (This Item Rs.35,672) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.24 above. 10-9-98: The Department explained that a sum of Rs.13,426 had been recovered. Efforts were being made to recover the balance of Rs.22,246. The Public Accounts Committee kept the para pending for balance recovery and verification of the entire recovery by Audit. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –




26. Para 2.1(1): Page 46 – Non Deduction/Less Deduction of Income Tax – Rs.131,302 (This Item Rs.74,367) Audit had observed: “According to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue from time to time, the Authority, making payment out of public Funds for contracted goods or services rendered within a financial year, is required to deduct Income Tax at prescribed rate i.e. 3% from contractors and 2 1/2% from general suppliers under Sr.No.2 Column No.3 of Summary of Ordinance 1979. Contrary to this provision, the following formations made payment to various suppliers of bricks through the execution of contractors but Income Tax at source was not deducted or less deducted.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that the actual amount involved was Rs. 79,626 instead of Rs.74,367 which had been recovered from the supplier concerned and had been verified by District Accounts Officer. The D.D.O. had however been warned to be careful in future. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 27. Para 2.1(2): Page 46 – Non Deduction/Less Deduction of Income Tax – Rs.1,31,302 (This Item Rs.56,935) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.26 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that Rs.56,935 on account of Income Tax had since been recovered and verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 28. Para 2.2: Page 47 – Irregular Expenditure on Account of Purchase of Furniture Amounting to Rs.449,345 Audit had observed: “The Deputy Director Engineering expended Rs.449.345 for purchase of furniture in the month from April to June, 1992 under sanction of the Director General Water Management in violation of notification of Government of Punjab, Finance Department No.FD/(PR)11-9/77, dated 8th February, 1978 and No.FD(FR)11-4/92, dated 24 Nov., 1986 under which it was laid down that open tender inquiry should be adopted for the amount available for purchase of store or a similar class of articles of store at one time and without splitting the indent during the period of one year. The purchase was split up and kept within powers of the DG i.e. Rs.150,000 in order to avoid the sanction of the next higher authority”. 2-4-98: The Department explained that furniture was required for a new, Japan Assisted, Project. The funds were released very late by the Finance Department and there was not sufficient time to fulfill the codal formalities i.e. calling tenders through the press to meet with the requirements of open competition and obtaining sanction of the Competent Authority. There was also an embargo imposed by the Finance Department for not allowing the funds after 30-6-92. Under such tight circumstances the Department had no option except to go



forward and make the purchase of furniture so that the said project could be started as per agreement, otherwise the donor agency would have agitated and suspended the agreement. The purchases were therefore made in good faith and in the public interest. The Department further stated that there was no misappropriation of funds involved. The PAC directed the Department to move the case for regularization of expenditure by the Finance Department, on merits of the case. The para was kept pending. 10-9-98: The Department explained that as per directive of Public Accounts Committee dated 2-4-98 the case for regularization of expenditure had been sent to the Finance Department. The PAC kept the para pending for regularization of expenditure by the Finance Department. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –


29. Para 2.3(1): Page 48 – Irregular Expenditure on Excess Lining of Watercourses-Worth Rs.445,699 (This Item Rs.119,276) Audit had observed: “Irregular expenditure of the stated amount was incurred on excess brick lining of watercourses in respect of the following formations which is against the Policy of Govt. as laid down at Page-17 of P.C-I Scheme that the Watercourses are to be brick lined up to 30% of length of watercourses. Since the underground water of all the Project Area is broken or partially fit for irrigation, the remaining 70% would be rebuilt with clean compacted soil. Necessity for recovery of the expenditure is stressed.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that the work was carried out according to the contour maps issued by the Irrigation Department and no excess lining of the watercourses was carried out. The Department was directed to produce the relevant record to Audit for verification of its contention. The para was settled subject to verification of record by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that construction of watercourses was done according to contour maps and lining was done within the prescribed limit. Audit also endorsed the explanation of the Department. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the explanation and settled the para. 30. Para 2.3(2): Page 48 – Irregular Expenditure on Excess Lining of Watercourses - Worth Rs.445,699 (This Item Rs.326,423) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.29 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that the demolishing of old Kacha watercourse and its



earthen improvement was pre-requisite to qualify for pacca improvement. Therefore, practically “Pacca” is always done on the basis of earthen improved length. The work of brick lining was done within the limit of 30% according to the basic data sheet and to go map. Factual position had also been verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 31. Para 2.4(1): Page 49 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.24,670) Audit had observed: “In the following cases the surplus watercourses construction material after the finalization of civil works, was neither available at sites nor received back in the main stores.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that total recovery of Rs.24,670 had been effected and verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 32. Para 2.4(2): Page 49 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.38,790) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that material was issued according to the work estimate. Anyhow, on some watercourses the work was not completed due to some local disputes and material became surplus. Un-utilized material valuing Rs.38,709 was received back and accounted for. The Department was directed to recover the remaining amount and produce the relevant record to Audit for verification. The para was settled subject to verification of record and balance recovery by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that out of total surplus construction material valuing Rs.38790 the receipt back entries of the material for Rs. 29,973 and receipt back of 19 Nakka valuing Rs.2,615 had been verified by Audit. Items valuing Rs. 6,202 were utilized by NESPAK and verified by Audit. The explanation of the Department was accepted and the para was settled. 33. Para 2.4(3): Page 49 – Misappropriation of Surplus Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.18,956) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that an amount of Rs. 9,680 had been recovered and verified by Audit. As regards the position of watercourse No.54860/R,12980/R and 84800/R it was stated that neither the material in excess of requirement was supplied nor any payment of bricks was made. The Department was directed to get the position verified by Audit. The para was settled subject to verification of facts by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that a sum of Rs.1,275/50 (417.50+858) on account of shortage of bricks had been recovered. There was no further shortage as on watercourse No.54860/R the actual quantity of bricks received was 23000 which erroneously was written



as 33000. Position had also been verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and settled the para. 34. Para 2.4(4): Page 49 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.52,723) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that the actual cost of material reported to be surplus was Rs.49,681 instead of Rs. 52,723 as shown by Audit. Material worth Rs.32,103 was received back. Cost of the remaining material was recovered from the Water Users Association. The Public Accounts Committee directed the Department to produce the relevant record to Audit for verification of the factual position. The para was settled subject to verification of record/balance amount pertaining to various items. 10-9-98: The Department explained that the entire record relating to surplus watercourses construction material had been verified by Audit. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the explanation and settled the para. 35. Para 2.4(5): Page 49 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.52,470) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that cost of 55 bags unspent cement and 29000 un-utilized bricks work Rs.30,420 had been recorded and deposited in Govt Treasury. The entry for 30,000 bricks valuing Rs 22,050 was erroneously made in the stock register which was subsequently cancelled. The Department was directed to get the position verified by Audit. The para was settled subject to verification of facts by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that relevant record relating to surplus watercourses construction material had been got verified by Audit. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the explanation and settled the para. 36. Para 2.4(6): Page 49 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Stores Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.41,480) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that material valuing Rs.15,650/50 had been received back and cost of the un-traceable material amounting to Rs.25,829/40 had been recovered and deposited in the Government Treasury. The position had also been shown to Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 37. Para 2.4(7): Page 50 – Misappropriation of surplus construction Material not received back in the main store worth Rs.1,354,885 (This item Rs.544,013) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that material valuing Rs. 4,31,600 had either been



received back in cash or in kind. The remaining recovery of Rs.1,06,014/45 was being effected as arrears of land revenue. At present Rs.63,095 were in the balance to be recovered. The para was kept pending to finalize the recovery and verification of the same by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that recovery of Rs.4,74,743 had been got verified by Audit. The balance amount of Rs.69,270 was under recovery. The PAC kept the item pending for balance recovery of Rs.69,270 at the earliest. 29-4-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –


38. Para 2.4(8): Page 50 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.23,165) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that all the material was entered in the main stock register. However, while transferring the entries on watercourse-wise registers, some entries were omitted. The omissions had since been rectified. Since there was no shortage/deficiency, therefore, nothing was to be recovered. The Department was directed to produce the relevant record to Audit for verification of factual position. The para was kept pending. 10-9-98: The Department explained that the relevant record pertaining to the Accountal of material worth Rs.23,165 along with completion certificate duly verified by NESPAK had been got verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and settled the item.39. Para 2.4 (9): Page 50 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.66,734) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that material valuing Rs.37,406/50 was received back and consumed in the same watercourse. An amount of Rs.29,327 being the cost of damaged/untraceable material was recovered and deposited into Government Treasury. The para was kept pending for verification of relevant record by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that relevant record showing the recovery of Rs.29,412 and “receipt back material” worth Rs.18,320 and consumption of material worth Rs.19,001 had been got verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted by the PAC and the item was settled.40. Para 2.4 (10): Page 50 – Misappropriation of Surplus Material Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.17,905) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that cost of 100 cement bags amounting to Rs.11,600 had been recovered and deposited into Treasury – 13 No. Nakkas costing Rs. 2405 were also



received back and accounted for. The Department was directed to complete the recovery and get it verified by Audit. The para was settled subject to said verification of record by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that the total recovery had been effected and deposited into the Govt treasury. The position had also been verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted by the PAC and the item was settled.41.Para 2.4(11): Page 50 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.271,877) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that surplus material worth Rs.201,308 was received back and issued to other watercourses. An amount of Rs. 70,587 being the cost of untraceable/damaged material was recovered and deposited into the Treasury. Therefore, no loss to the Government had occurred. The para was settled subject to verification of record by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that as per directive of Public Accounts Committee I dated 2-4-98 the relevant record had been got verified by Audit. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the explanation and the item was settled. 42. Para 2.4(12): Page 50 – Misappropriation of Surplus Construction Material Not Received Back Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.166,240) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that surplus material worth Rs. 1,64,199 was fully utilized during the next year on watercourse No. 42440/L and 6000/L. Completion report was verified by NESPAK. The unutilized “Nakkas” had been received back and accounted for in the books. The Department was directed to get the recovery verified by Audit and the para was settled subject to the said verification. 10-9-98: The Department explained that the relevant record pertaining to the utilization of material worth Rs.1,64,199 and receipt back/recovery of material worth Rs.2,071 (Rs.1286+Rs.785) had been got verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and the item was settled. 43. Para 2.4(13): Page 50 – Misappropriation of Surplus Material Not Received Back in the Main Store Worth Rs.1,354,885 (This Item Rs.35,862) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.31 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that cost of untraceable material amounting to Rs. 26,568 had been recovered and verified by Audit. The surplus material worth Rs. 9,294 had been received back and Accountal thereof verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 44. Para 2.5: Page 51 – Excess Consumption of Cement Over and Above the Maximum Limit for Rs. 32,700 (Shujaabad)



Audit had observed: “As per Departmental formula for the consumption of construction material maximum limit of 500 number bricks 1,873 bags of cement and 26M” sand is to be consumed on one cubic metre of masonry work. During the scrutiny of completion reports of watercourses No.131450/L and 118220/L, cement worth Rs.32,700 was shown consumed in excess of prescribed limit.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that cost of excess consumed cement amounting to Rs.32,700 had been recovered from the water users Association and deposited into Treasury. The Department was directed to produce the relevant record to Audit for verification of factual position. The para was settled subject to the verification of record by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that a sum of Rs.32,700 being the cost of excess consumed cement had been recovered from the water users. The position had been verified by Audit. The PAC accepted the explanation and the para was settled.45. Para 2.6(1): Page 52 – Recovery on Account of Purchase of Sand on Excessive Rates Rs.26,533 (This Item – Rs.144,573) Audit had observed: “The Director (Field) on-Farm Water Management Programme Dera Ghazi Khan while issuing the technical sanction for the cost of watercourses during the year 1992-93 fixed rate of sand at Rs.120 per C.M. with the further direction that special sanction should be obtained in case the rates exceeded this limit but no such sanction was obtained and the sand was purchased on excessive rates which resulted in the excess payment.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that requisite sand was purchased after observing all codal formalities at the most competitive rates. The Director (Field) on W.M. D.G. Khan, having full powers of the purchase of construction material, accorded the necessary sanction in this case. The position had also been verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 46. Para 2.6(2): Page 52 – Recovery on Account of Purchase of Sand on Excessive Rates – Rs.26,533 (This Item Rs.81,960) For Audit observation, see Sr.No.45 above. 2-4-98: The Department explained that requisite sand was purchased after observing all codal formalities at the most competitive rates. The Director (Field) on W.M. D.G.Khan, having full powers of the purchase of construction material, accorded necessary sanction in this case. The position had also been verified by Audit. The explanation was accepted and the para was settled. 47. Para 2.7: Page 53 – Excess Payment on Account of Purchase of Bricks and Sand at Different Rates on Watercourse – Rs. 24,854 Audit had observed: “As per standing orders/instructions of the Department bricks/sand



for watercourses are purchased under agreement with suppliers after observing necessary codal formalities but in these cases the period of supply was not mentioned and due to this reason material on the same watercourse was purchased on different rates which resulted in excess payment of Rs.24,854.” 2-4-98: The Department explained that work pertaining to 9 watercourses was taken up in 1991-92. The material was purchased after observing all necessary codal formalities on the most competitive rates. The work was completed up to 30.6.92. Anyhow, the farmers approached the Department for additional lining of the same watercourses. Accordingly the material was again purchased after observing the necessary codal formalities. This time the rates of the material had gone a bit higher due to escalation and market inflation, but the difference was a meager amount of Rs. 15 to 35. The Department was directed to produce the relevant record for additional lining to Audit for verification of factual position. The para was settled subject to verification of record by Audit. 10-9-98: The Department explained that original work of improvement of watercourses was completed up to 30-6-92. The additional lining of the same watercourses was carried out on the request of farmers who approached the Department for this purpose. The additional work was carried out after observing all codal and procedural formalities. The difference of rates of material as compared to the original work was due to escalation and market inflation. The PAC accepted the explanation and settled the para. 48. Para 2.8: Page 53 – Unauthorized Expenditure of Rs.128,935 Audit had observed: “The pacca lining of 2185 metres of the watercourses was done at three stages during the year 1985-86, 1987-88 & 1992-93 against the total katcha length of 600 metres of the watercourse No.23,800/R while, as per PC-I only 30% of the total length of watercourses i.e. 1800 metres could have been pacca lined. Thus 385 metre pacca lining costing Rs128,935 was done without authorisation.” 2-4-98: The Department stated that total length of katcha watercourses was 10960 meter instead of 6000 m. Hence pacca lining of 2185 meter was within prescribed limit of 30%. Hence no extra expenditure was incurred by the Department. The position was verified by Audit. The para was settled. 49. Para 15.1: Page 150 – Irregular Utilization of Funds for Rs.80,114 Purchase of Store Articles (This Para was originally in Irrigation Department and was transferred here on 3-8-98). Audit had observed: “Rs.80,114 was provided for expenditure in the Office of Project Director, Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia (South) Project, Bahawalnagar but this amount was spent on purchase of store articles and other misc: expenditure for the office of the Water-



management Specialist, Bahawalnagar, (Haroonabad) under Phase-III Project.” 10-9-98: The Department explained that office of the Project Director, Fordwah Sadiqia Eastern (South) Irrigation and Drainage Project Bahawalnagar was established in 7/92 but the Project Director was not declared as D.D.O. Therefore the Water Management Specialist Bahawalnagar-I and Haroonabad-I were authorized to incur the expenditure and he made the purchases of material for the office of the Project Director Fordwah Sadiqia, Irrigation and Drainage Project, Bahawalnagar. Therefore, there was no irregularity. The explanation was accepted by the Public Accounts Committee and the para was settled.

Commercial Audit 1. Para 3(i to x): Page 5 – Non Compilation of Accounts

Audit had observed: “23 current and 29 arrears accounts which have not been compiled and/or sent by the organization to Audit as in given cases.

(i) Agricultural Engineering, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur 1993-94

(ii) Agricultural Engineering, D.G. Khan Division, D.G. Khan 1993-94

(iii) Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad 1993-94

(iv) Agricultural Engineering, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala 1993-94

(v) Agricultural Engineering, Jhelum Division, Jhelum 1993-94

(vi) Agricultural Engineering, Lahore Division, Lahore 1993-94

(vii) Agricultural Engineering, Multan Division, Multan 1993-94

(viii) Agricultural Engineering, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi 1993-94



(ix) Agricultural Engineering, Sargodha Division , Sargodha 1993-94

(x) Agricultural Engineering, Talagang Division, Talagang 1993-94

30-5-02: The PAC noted the contents of the audit paras and directed that the Departments should promptly compile the accounts and submit the same to Audit for necessary action. In future, the Departments must ensure that the accounts are compiled and submitted to Audit on time.

2. Para 6: Page 15 – Appointment of 77 Employees Over and Above the Sanctioned Strength Involving Payment of Rs.447,456 Audit had observed: “In Agricultural Engineering, Gujranwala, the Agricultural Engineer appointed 77 employees from BPS-1 to 7 during the period from October 1992 to December 1992 over and above the sanctioned strength of the division. The modus operand was that the Agricultural Engineer had transferred posts from different districts to the divisional office without sending the copies of the orders to the respective districts inspite of the fact that such posts were not actually vacant in these districts and recruitments were made against these fake vacancies. When the matter came to the notice of the higher authorities the services of all the seventy seven employees were terminated on August 31, 1993 after payment of Rs.447,456 to them. The officer was first transferred to Faisalabad as technical officer and thereafter he has been placed under suspension. The case is till under enquiry.” 30-5-02: On consideration of the facts of the case, the Committee settled the para subject to the following direction –

The matter shall be decided by the SDAC and further necessary action shall be taken by 30 September 2002 in the light of the decision of the SDAC. The action taken in the matter shall be reported to the Assembly Secretariat. Finance Department shall monitor the implementation of the directive of the PAC.

3. Para 7: Page 15 – Shortage/Misappropriation of Spare Parts/POL Valuing Rs.355,049 by the Store Officer/Storekeeper Audit had observed: “In Agricultural Engineering, Sargodha the Store Officer/ Storekeeper misappropriated spare parts/POL valuing Rs.355,049 during the period ranging from September 1985 to December 1990 fraudulently by tampering and making fictitious entries in records which were detected as a result of physical verification and scrutiny of store records carried by the Department. Director Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad on August 18, 1993 appointed Abdul Salam, Agricultural Engineer,

pac-reports-1993-94-contentspapmis.pitb.gov.pk/uploads/downloads/pac-reports/pac1993-1994.pdf ·...

Documents