SAI centre in multi-crore scam

Surprisingly, the audit for the three financial years was conducted at one go. It has come out with enough proof of maladministration at the centre but listing them here would be too exhaustive.

Take the report for 1992-93. Of all the SAI centres, Gandhinagar seems to have set a dubious record as far as maintaining books and lavish spending go. Unfortunately, the audit reports for the period 1992 and after 1995 are not available.

FIXED DEPOSITS: The centre deposited Rs. 64 lakh with the State Bank of India in two FD8217;s of Rs. 20 lakh each and another for Rs. 24 lakh for 46 days. Since this tantamounts to opening a new account, it needed the approval of the governing body. But no approval was sought or given. Having deposited the amount, the centre also failed to ensure the right calculation of interest.

However, the centre kept renewing the deposits a number of times for the same period. The best part was that the SAI officials did not even know the rate of interest!

This clearly reflected a callous and negligent attitude of the staff,8217; the report said. The first one was credited nine days after its maturity which meant a loss of Rs. 4,142. But in the second case, the report says, SAI incurred a heavy loss of interest which, on even a simple interest rate of 11 per cent, meant Rs. 2.5 lakh. As for the third one, the date of encashment could not be traced in the bank statement.

The report notes that keeping these fixed deposits for such a long period showed lack of planning. Similarly, the Centre maintained accounts in three different banks without even preparing the monthly reconciliation. In a specific case, interest amount of Rs. 13,999 was credited in a bank but was not accounted for in the books. The audit has expressed surprise over the tallied trial balance shown to them, despite the differences in cash books.

Again, one of the bank accounts was opened without getting the governing body8217;s approval, which was a clear violation of the financial bylaws, the report points out. It has also indicted the present accounts officer R.C. Trivedi who paid back Rs. 4,010 against adjustment of Leave Travel Concession advance on March 31, 1993. But it was credited only on September 3, 1993.

The reports says that as the then junior accounts officer, Trivedi should have known about the delay, implying that it was a deliberate act on his part. The report even recommends 8220;proper action8221; for the negligence. But he has since been promoted and transferred to New Delhi.

MAINTENANCE OF PLAYFIELD: A purported golf course in Gandhinagar has cost the exchequer Rs. 5.82 lakh. Though the audit points out that the decision to have a golf course without any authority has resulted in loss of government funds, the best noting by the audit is: 8220;During our stay at SAI, Gandhinagar, we could not see any golf course developed in the allotted area of SAI.8221;

It has also mentioned that the regional director has violated the rules and regulations under which these kind of activities are to be taken up. More than that, the head of account booked for 8220;a new project taken up is totally misleading.8221; Obviously, no approval was taken from the competent authority for this project. In fact, permission could not have been granted as 8220;golf is not a specified sport in the list approved for Gandhinagar.8221;The audit notes, apart from pointing out the 8220;weaknesses in the agreement and maintenance of records8221;, that the contracts awarded for labour, material, etc., are 8220;not from doubts.8221;

The agreement with Vigil Labour Consultants was executed after accepting the tender by hand while seven other parties sent it through registered post, as is the normal practice. 8220;And the Vigil contract at the rate of 27 per cent charges 8212; Rs. 32.69 per day, per person 8212; is by any standard very high considering the nature of service asked for,8221; says the report. This is only a tip of the iceberg as the agency has been favoured over other parties despite the 8220;high rates8221; quoted by Vigil.

In several other cases, no quotation was invited from any party but hefty amounts have been paid to them giving scant regard for all norms.

CONSTRUCTION: Amount of Rs. 1.6 crore was said to have been spent on various construction at the centre but the details were not available, says the report. The SAI officials have failed to segregate the various heads of construction, putting the audit in difficulty. In fact, Rs. 14.10 lakh spent could not be identified against any project but the amount has been spent!In almost all the work undertaken, no final inspection by CPWD and SAI team was conducted and in some cases the final bills were not received but payments have been made. In most other cases, excess payments have been made than what had been shown in the prescribed forms for the work completed. And that comes to Rs. 2.18 lakh.

The other objections