Audit para on Surrender of funds sanctioned works - Professional Issues - All - irastimes - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Audit para on Surrender of funds sanctioned works

Author	Comment
pankajp	Audit para on Surrender of funds sanctioned works	Lead	[-]
Posts: 339 (03/06/09 01:15:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None In one of the zonal railways, Audit has raised an objection regarding surrender of funds in regard to sanctioned works. In the opinion of Audit, surrender of funds reflect poorly on the functioning of different departments. 70% of the funds allotted in respect to works in progress were surrendered at the end of financial year due to non-completion of sanctioned works. Finance has duly forwarded the Audit report to different HODs for their comments. Now, if compliance of all laid down procedures and tender/purchase procedures results in non-completion of santioned works, should it invite Audit's criticism? Is it more important to complete sanctioned works without ensuring compliance of laid down procedures? How different departments are responsible for this audit para?
subbu98		#1	[-]
Posts: 178 (03/06/09 21:18:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Pray tell us Pankaj who should reply to this Audit Para? Let us recapitulate the extant provisions without getting too perked up? 1. We have a CAG who is a Constitutional Authority. It is his job to audit on behalf of the Republic of India on matters pertaining to public money. 2. Prima facie surrendering of sanctioned money not in the event of a decision to do away of the work could mean either the sanction was more or the execution was inefficient. 3. Either of the two could have led among other things to cost escalation and starving at the planning and sanctioning stages of a more appropriate project. Or they may not have. There could have been valid reasons. 4. Somehow the CAG of India has been entrusted with the job of finding out on behalf of the Parliament all such valid or invalid reasons. 5. So someone has to give a reply for the consumption of the 'Public of India.' In case of the Railways, it is the General Manager. The concerned Department is just helping the General Manager to state the circumstances. 6. It can be irritating, but then that is how things have been in matters of accountability. 7. I'm afraid Pankaj that you will have to live with that exasperating reality as long as you continue to serve the members of the public on behalf of the President of India. Else you have to generate sufficient public opinion to do away with the CAG. 8. By the way, in most other places , accountability is also ensured. Sometimes through more unpleasant means. I presume that not until someone overhauls the system of audit in the Government, there is no point in discussing this subject in this forum. This forum is simply not empowered enough. Subhashish Nath. Last Edited By: subbu98 03/06/09 21:32:44. Edited 1 times.
pankajp	no overhaul	#2	[-]
Posts: 340 (03/06/09 22:40:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	there is no hope of any overhauling of audit system' What is important is to note that the executive departments have no say in the amount of funds alotted for sanctioned works, nor do they decided the purchase procedures or works contract procedures (except for some role of civil engineers) Further, surrender of funds asked for is not causing any loss of public money. Then why waste number of papers by raising this Audit objection?
malikapm	LET THE WATCHDOG SNIFF	#3	[-]
Posts: 12 (03/06/09 23:07:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It is no waste of paper. In fact many a scam would have been averted had the audit been proactive-in fact just active. Audit should ask as many questions as they like-wild questions, wrong questions, exasperating questions, blunt questions, probing questions etc etc. If what we are doing is right, we would be able to answer all their questions. APM
subbu98		#4	[-]
Posts: 179 (03/07/09 01:30:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would tend to agree with Mr Malik. Everyone or everything has utility. The first step to accountability is to be amenable to questions. If the executive department had no role in how much fund was sanctioned, then it should state so with conviction as the reply and forget about it. Then the game shall be played by the sanctioning authority. So many times we hide behind the futility of a long train of procedures to account for our own inefficiencies. If funds are surrendered, it is not a good thing. It is someone's job to do an analysis. Good that Audit has asked questions. It is an enabling situation. There is no need to get perked up about this. Subhashish Nath.
Vikas		#5	[-]
Posts: 1 (05/13/09 08:26:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi All! Govt systems work on checks and balances. Particularly, The Common Wealth Countries follow system of "you do it" and "many will check you". The audit has given a pointer. Now, it is for "collective wisdom" to decide if the system is going wrong or the "pointer" was useless. So, follow the routine as usual...without emotions. All the best!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply