CONSOLIDATED
AUDIT REPORT ON
BRGF
ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 2010-11-
MEDAKDISTRICT
- BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF THE SCHEME:
The scheme is designed to redress the regional
imbalances in development. The fund is intended to provide financial resources
for supplementing and converging existing developmental inflows into identified
as backward districts. Medak District is
one of the (13) identified Districts in Andhra Pradesh. The implementation of
the scheme was commenced from the 2007-08
- Objectives of the programme:
·
Bridge critical gaps in local infrastructure and
other development requirements that are not being adequately et through
existing inflows,
·
Strengthen to this end Panchayat and
Municipality level governance with more appropriate capacity building to
facilitate participatory planning, decisions making, implementation and
monitoring to reflect local felt needs.
·
Provide professional support to local bodies for
planning implementation and monitoring their plans
·
Improve the performance and delivery of critical
functions assigned to Panchayats and counter possible efficiency and equity
loses on account of inadequate local capacity.
- Organizational structure and fund flow
04. ASSURED FUND RELEASE – FUND ACTUALLY RELEASED:
·
Every
District will receive a fixed minimum of amount of Rs. 10 crore per annum
·
50% of
the balance allocation under the Scheme will be allocated on the basis of the
share of the population of the district an the total population of all backward
district
·
The
remaining 50% will be distributed on the basis of the share of the area of the
district in the total area of all backward districts.
On basis of the above criteria, an
amount of Rs. 22.63 crores was released to Medak District in addition to the
back log dues, The details of total fund available at the disposal of the
District Administration are:
S.No.
|
Description
|
Amount in Lakhs
|
1
|
Grant released for spill over works 2007-08
|
133.37
|
2
|
Grant released for spill over works 2009-10
|
579.00
|
3
|
Grant released for current year 2010-11
|
2263.00
|
4
|
Amount released by State Government towards penalty for
retaining the Central Government for certain period
|
65.32
|
5
|
Interest earned
|
9.91
|
Total releases
|
3050.37
|
|
6.
|
Releases taken into account for UC
(2010-11)(3+4+5)
|
2338.23
|
7.
|
Unspent balance as per previous UC
|
1115.35
|
8.
|
Total(6+7)
|
3453.58
|
9.
|
Expenditure
|
2279.35
|
10
|
Closing balance(8-9)
|
1174.23
|
Expenditure percentage – 66%
05.
Assured Share
allocation – Actual allocationL
Total releases for the current year
action plan Rs 2263. 00 lakhs
Additional
Grant released by GOAP
Rs. 65.32 lakhs
( to be released to GPs and MPPs)
S.No
|
Shares to be apportioned
|
Shares actually
apportioned and devolved (Lakhs)
|
Less/Excess
|
|
INSTITUTION TYPE
|
Amount to be allocated (lakhs)
|
|||
1
|
50% GPs’ SHARE
|
1172.56
|
950.44
|
222.12 (Less)
|
2
|
30% MPPs’ SHARE
|
703.16
|
581.93
|
121.23 (Less)
|
3
|
20% Other agencies including ULBs
|
452.60
|
795.95
|
343.35 (Excess)
|
Total
|
2328.32
|
2328.32
|
||
** As shown above, the executive authority failed to allocate
to GPs and MPPs as assured under the guide lines and the grant was excess
released to the Engineering Wings of ZP and ULBs. Obviously, less release of
the funds to MPPs and GPs adversely affect the expected achievement of the
targets in the rural sector. Reasons for
the deviation in release of the funds as mentioned above could not be explained
to Audit.
06. Audit Criteria:
Ø
To find out the realization objective framed for
BRGF scheme
Ø
To examine the expenditure incurred under BRGF
scheme in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the government of India
Ø
To find out outputs of the scheme in qualitative
and quantitative terms
Ø
To elucidate the strengths and weaknesses in
implementation of the scheme
Ø
To suggest a model path for execution of
schematic recommendations.
07.
Financial and Physical target as per action
plan – achievement as per progress report
and those came under the scrutiny
of Audit
Physical targets
as per action plan and as per progress report for March ending 2011
Target as per action plan (No.
of works)
|
Achievement as per progress
report
|
Short fall
|
Percentage of short fall
|
||
Spillover works
|
Current year works
|
Total
|
|||
3020
|
3680
|
6700
|
2885
|
3815
|
56%
|
Financial
targets as per action plan and achievement
S.
No
|
Type
of institution
|
Target
as per action plan (Amount to be spent)
|
Funds at the disposal of agencies
|
Amount
spent
|
short fall
|
||
Spillover works
|
Current year works
|
Total
|
|||||
1
|
PRIs and ULBs
|
1679.13
|
2497.12
|
4194.25
|
3453.58
|
2279.34
|
1174.23
|
Ø
The executive authority could not reveal as to
how the correctness of the progress report was scrutinized and authenticity
established.
Sector wise
planning, execution of the works under BRGF:
CHART – I (PHYSICAL TARGET)
TYPES OF WORKS –CHART
-I
S. No.
|
Type of work
|
Physical Target
|
Achievement
|
1
|
Anganwadi buildings
|
36
|
18
|
2
|
SC/ST Hostel buildings
|
66
|
26
|
3
|
Animal Husbandry
|
41
|
10
|
4
|
Primary Health centres
|
3
|
1
|
CHART – 1.1(FINANCIAL
TARGET)
Sector
|
Financial target (Rs.in lakhs)
|
Achievement
|
Anganwadi buildings
|
46.6
|
23.20
|
SC/ST Hostel building
|
98.26
|
42.20
|
Animal husbandry
|
11.82
|
5.30
|
Primary Health Centres
|
3.35
|
2.20
|
TYPES OF WORKS –CHART
–II (PHYSICAL)
S. No.
|
Type of work
|
Pysical Target
|
Achievement
|
1
|
GP buildings
|
244
|
101
|
2
|
Drinking Water
|
2322
|
874
|
3
|
Electrification
|
490
|
163
|
4
|
School buildings/compound walls
|
109
|
42
|
5
|
Roads and drains
|
835
|
410
|
6
|
Sanitation
|
1999
|
854
|
7
|
Others
|
555
|
386
|
TYPES OF WORKS –CHART
–II .I (FINANCIAL)
(Rs. In Lakhs)
S. No.
|
Type of work
|
Financial Target
|
Achievement
|
1
|
GP buildings
|
247.82
|
128.32
|
2
|
Drinking Water
|
785.34
|
323.90
|
3
|
Electrification
|
367.88
|
158.83
|
4
|
School buildings/compound walls
|
124.18
|
65.32
|
5
|
Roads
|
886.54
|
688.98
|
6
|
Sanitation
|
1221.48
|
518.89
|
7
|
Others
|
400.98
|
322.21
|
Audit
coverage:
The details of the
executing agencies to which the funds were released for implementation of the
programme, the details of the agencies which produced records to the audit are
as shown below.
S.No.
|
Type
of Institution
|
Demand
|
Audit
completed
|
Balance
|
1.
|
GPs
|
1059
|
712
|
347
|
2.
|
MPPs
|
46
|
36
|
10
|
3
|
ULBs
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
ZP Engg wings
|
4
|
4
|
|
5
|
AP TRANSCO
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
The
following works and expenditure shown against them came under the scrutiny of
Audit.
S.
No.
|
Type
of works
|
No.
of works
|
Amount
(Rs.
In lakhs)
|
1
|
Drains – sanitation works
|
854
|
389.97
|
2
|
Roads and bridges
|
410
|
594.25
|
3
|
PWS works
|
874
|
323.90
|
4
|
Street lighting
|
163
|
53.64
|
5
|
Buildings
|
478
|
695.17
|
6
|
Others
|
106
|
222.41
|
Total
|
2885
|
2279.34
|
08. Preparation of the action plan – incept selection of the
works – unfocussed areas
The following works have
been selected for execution in the District plan, the same were scrutinized by higher
power committee and sanction was accorded by the Government
S. No.
|
Type of work
|
Pysical Target
|
1
|
GP buildings
|
244
|
2
|
Drinking Water
|
2322
|
3
|
Electrification
|
490
|
4
|
School buildings/compound walls
|
109
|
5
|
Roads and drains
|
835
|
6
|
Sanitation
|
1999
|
7
|
Others
|
555
|
8
|
Anganwadi buildings
|
36
|
9
|
SC/ST Hostel buildings
|
66
|
10
|
Animal Husbandry
|
41
|
11
|
Primary Health centres
|
3
|
Total
|
6700
|
When the nature of the works
selected was viewed, many pit holes could be picked up. As many as (2322) works
were selected under RWS, higher number of works selected were of maintenance nature; Repairs to Motor
and pump set, procurement of the pump set and construction of the mini waters
tanks. These works can be executed by the GPs with their own funds and funds
available under TFC and 13th F.C. Adequate attention was not focused
on creation of durable assets under RWS Schemes.
Further, under street lighting,
procurement of electrical material was permitted which not in list of priority
works. Instead of the taking up of the Rural Electrification in the isolated
ST/SC localities, the funds were released for purchase of the street lighting
material which is contrary to objective according which the fund is to be spent
to bride critical gaps in local infrastructure and other development
requirements that are not being adequately met through the existing inflows.
During the audit scrutiny, it
was identified that no focus was laid on certain areas like individual
beneficiary scheme, supply of agriculture implements and tractor trolleys to
the small and marginal SC/ST farmers. No works were selected and executed.
Similarly no focus was laid down on development of rural play grounds.
It was also identified that
the District Administration ignored to take up the projects to train the rural
youth in the fields such as Computers, Repairs of Mobile Phones and Driving
etc,
Usually rural Youth are
physically fit and sound and they are suitable for the posts in Military and
other Security Forces. Keeping in view this fact, the GOI recommended giving
Pre-Recruitment training to Rural Youth to join Military Forces as part of BRGF
programme. But this aspect has been totally ignored.
The process of selection of works/
projects was not so oriented as to fully realize the objectives of the scheme.
09.
Audit
observations:
09.1 Objections raised under 50% GP share:
(a) Diversion of fund:(code 03)
(6) Objections involving an
amount of Rs. 4.44 lakhs were raised under this category as mentioned in the
annexure appended to this Report.
(b) Advance drawn but not adjusted (Code 08):
(121) objections involving an
amount of Rs. 83.05 lakhs were raised under this category were raised as
mentioned in the annexure appended to this Report. The executive authorities of
GPs have drawn amounts in advance before execution of works and failed to
complete the works and adjust the amounts drawn in advance. The Mandal
authorities did not watch the drawal of the funds and execution of the works.
(c)
Non-production the records (Code 11):
(5) Objections involving an
amount of Rs. 3.98 lakhs under this category were raised as the executive
authorities failed to produce the connected records.
(d) Violation of rules [Code 9(a)]:
(46) Objections involving an
amount of Rs.17.97 lakhs under this category were raised as certain procedural
lapses were noticed during the audit.
(e) Non remittances of the TDS (Code 10)
(156) Objections involving an
amount of Rs.79.94 lakhs under this category were raised as the concerned executive authorities failed
to remit the TDS deducted in the workbills which caused the stoppage of revenue flow to the public exchequer.
Un-remitted amount of TDS will be susceptible for diversion or
mis-utilization.
(f) Excess payments (code 13))
(53) Objections involving an
amount of Rs.16.84 lakhs under this category were raised as the concerned
executive authorities drew the amount in excess of the value of works done. The
amount needs to be made good by imposing appropriate in deduction in the
further work bills or recovery of the same from the executants.
(g) under utilization
of grant (code 4)
(11)
Objections involving an amount of Rs. 16.20 lakhs under this category were
raised. The executive authorities kept the fund idle without utilizing at the
earliest.
09.02 Objections
raised under 30% MPP share:
(a) Dues not collected :(code 07)
(2) Objections involving an
amount of Rs. 6227/- were raised under this category as mentioned in the
annexure appended to this Report. The executive authority paid internet charges
of his office from the BRGF and failed to reimburse the same as on the date of
audit.
(b) Advance drawn but not adjusted (Code 08):
(2) Objections involving an
amount of Rs. 45000/- lakhs were raised under this category were raised as
mentioned in the annexure appended to this Report. The executive authorities of
MPPs have drawn amounts in advance before execution of works and failed to
complete the works and adjust the amounts drawn in advance. The Mandal
authorities did not watch the drawal of the funds and execution of the works.
(c)
Non-production the records (Code 11):
(4) Objections involving an
amount of Rs. 3.71 lakhs under this category were raised as the executive
authorities failed to produce the connected records.
(d) Non
remittances of the TDS (Code 10)
(22) Objections involving an
amount of Rs.22.75 lakhs under this category were raised as the concerned executive authorities failed
to remit the TDS deducted in the work bills which caused the stoppage revenue
flow to the public exchequer. Un-remitted amount of TDS will be susceptible for
diversion or mis-utilization.
(e) Excess payments (code 13))
(2) Objections involving an
amount of Rs.7163/- under this category were raised as the concerned executive
authorities drew the amount in excess of the value of works done. The amount
needs to be made good by imposing appropriate in deduction in the further work
bills or recovery of the same from the executants.
(f) Uneven and inequitable lay out of the works and
execution of the same – Instance case: Mandal Toopran
As
per approved plan (16) works involving
an amount of Rs. 11.95 lakhs under 30% Mandal share of MPP Toopran were
sanctioned. During the year under report, (8) spill over works involving the expenditure of Rs. 542794/-
approved in the Action plan for the year 2009-10 and another (8) works
involving the expenditure of Rs.578827/- approved in the action plan for the
year 2010-11 have been completed.
The main objective of the scheme is to bridge critical
gaps in local infrastructure and other development requirements that are not
being adequately met through existing inflows. But the selection of the works
and trend of the expenditure do not show the fulfillment of the said objective.
The administrative sanction was accorded
through proceedings issued by the MPDO Toopran. The works were taken up in the
limits of GPs. The PRIs, namely GP, MPP and ZPPs are separate entities having
their own assets and own jurisdiction. Under BRGF scheme, 20% share of total
funds is earmarked for the ZPs, 30% share to MPPs and 50% share to GPs. Instead
of spending the amount for creation of the own assets, the executive authority
of MPP bent upon to spend on others’ assets, viz., for construction of compound
wall to the ZPHS buildings at Ghanpur and Toopran and similar execution of
works was also noticed. It shows defective planning and utilization of the BRGF
funds. No amount has been spent for the inter-village developmental works. As per para 3 .11 chapter (3), the works
like inter-village road formation and multi panchyat irrigation structures were
not included in the Intermediate Panchayat
Further to above, the spending is
not found to be in equitable manner with regard to all the villages. In Toopran
village which is notified Panchayat having ample resources of its own, (3)
works with estimated of Rs. 2.25 lakhs in the Action plan for the year 2008-09
and (4) works with estimated cost of Rs.3.00 lakhs in the both the Action Plans
for 2009-10 and 2010-11 severally were sanctioned and executed. Out of total
annual allocation of Rs.11.95 lakhs under 30% MPP share, the major beneficiary
is Toopran village. No works were
provided for the Allapur and Jeedipally villages in the Action Plans for the
year 2009-10 and 2010-11. As such imbalanced and lopsided funding is noticed
during the course of audit.
No works listed in the Annexure -4
of BRGF guidelines wherein the list of priority intended for the development of
SC and ST localities, were taken up
Thus the planning itself is not
constructive and integrative to achieve the objective of the scheme.
09.3 Objections under 20% Share
ULBs :
MC.SADASIVAPET
Excess payments (code -130
(a)
BRGF – EXECUTION OF WORKS UNDER BRGF – WORK DONE – VALUE NOT RESTICTED – EXCESS
PAYMENTS – Rs. 1,18,036/- HELD UNDER OBJECTION:
During the course of audit, it is
found that the work done value has not been restricted to tender value which
has resulted in excess payments of Rs.1,18,036/- in respect of certain works
has shown in the Annexure enclosed. And
in some works the work done value admitted has been in excess over estimated
value which necessitate revised sanction both administrative and technical and
no such revised sanctions has been obtained and produced in audit for
verification.
The excess payment of
Rs.1, 18,036/- remitted due to not restricting the work done value to tender
value is irregular and in-admissible in audit and therefore held under objection.
(Annexure
enclosed)
M.C. SADASHIVPAET
PROCEDURAL LAPSES 9(a)
(c)
LAYING OF CC ROAD
FROM KHAJA MOHINUDDIN (H) TO RUKKAMMA (H) – EXECUTION OF ITEM OF WORK NOT
PROVIDED IN THE ESTIMATE IRREGULAR – COST PAID RS. 6,044/- HELD UNDER OBJECTION:
1.
Administrative
sanction - CR No. 510, dt.28.02.09
2.
Technical
sanction - T/S No. 59, dt.24.07.09
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 2.50 Lakhs
4.
Contractor - C.B. Yadagiri
5.
M.B.
No. - 111/09-10 Pg.No. 1 – 8
6.
Voucher
No. - 7, dt.17.04.10
During the audit,
it is noticed that the following item of work has been executed and the cost
has been paid to the contractor, though this item of work has not been provided
in the approved estimate.
Qty. Rate
Laying of CC (1:2:4) Pro-using 20
MM gauge metal 1.573x3842.40 = Rs.6044
for pot holes and pipeline trench.
The
execution of item of work not provided in the approved estimate is irregular
and in-admissible in audit and therefore the amount paid Rs.6,044/- is held
under objection.
MC.SADASIVAPET
Excess payment (code -13)
(d)
LAYING OF CC ROAD FROM BHARADI VEERA CHARY (H) TO P.NAGAIAH (H) – EXECESS
PAYMENT DUE TO WRONG CALCULATION – NEEDS RECOVERY – Rs. 1,051/-
1.
Administrative sanction - CR
No. 510, dt.28.02.09
2.
Technical
sanction - T/S No. 57, dt.24.07.09
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 1.50 Lakhs
4.
Contractor - P.Sudhakar
5.
M.B.
No. - 106/09-10 Pg.No. 6 – 17
6.
Voucher
No. - 8, dt.21.04.10
On verification of
the abstract of the work recorded at page no. 17 of the M.B., it is found that
an excess amount of Rs.1,051/- has been paid due to wrong calculation has shown
below:
Laying of CC (1:5:10) using 40 MM gauge metal including - paid :
10.51 x 2516.22 = 27,496.47p.
Cost and convince of all materials etc., -
to be paid : 10.51 x 2516.22 =
26,445.47p.
Excess : = 1,051.00
The excess payment
of Rs.1,051/- due to wrong calculation need to be recovered from the person or
persons responsible and remitted to BRGF funds and fact intimated to audit.
M.C. SADASHIVPAET
PROCEDURAL LAPSES 9(a)
(e) MUNICIPAL
OFFICE WORK – WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION – EXECUTION OF ITEMS OF WORKS
NOT PROVIDED IN THE ESTIMATES – IRREGULAR – COST PAID Rs. 1,09,45/- IS HELD
UNDER OBJECTION:
1.
Administrative
sanction - CR No. 510, dt.28.02.09
2.
Technical
sanction - T/S No. 148, dt.22.06.10
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 5.00 Lakhs
4.
Contractor - P.Anil Kumar
5.
M.B.
No. - 175/10-11 Pg.No. 1 – 48
6.
Voucher
No. - 6, dt.15.11.10
During the
course of audit it is noticed that the following item of work has been executed
and the cost has been paid to the contractor, though this item of work has not
been provided in the approved estimate.
Qty. Rate
Flooring with ceramic tiles in - 1.50.28
x728.36 = 1,09,457.94P.
bathroom walls with CM (1:8) Sq.Mtrs. 1 Sq.Mtr.
The execution of item of work not
provided in the approved estimate is irregular and in-admissible in audit and
therefore the amount paid Rs.1,09,457/- is held under objection.
MC.SADASIVAPET
Excess payments -13
(f)
LAYING OF CC ROAD FROM IQBAL (H) – ESHWAR MANDIR AND CONSTRUCTION OF STROM
WATER DRAIN FROM SRINIVAS GOUD (H) TO DEVARAMPALLY (H) WARD NO. 21 – 1%
PROVISION MADE IN THE ESTIMATE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR – IRREGULAR – Rs.2,900/-
- HELD UNDER OBJECTION AND EXCESS PAYMENT OF Rs. 16,063/- NEEDS RECOVERY
1.
Administrative
sanction - CR No. 8, dt.27.05.10
2.
Technical
sanction - T/S No. 63, dt.24.04.10
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 3.20 Lakhs
4.
Contractor - P.Sudhakar
5.
M.B.
No. - 136/10-11 Pg.No. 18 – 24
6. Voucher No. - 5, dt.18.08.10
In
the budget estimate under L.S. towards unforeseen contingencies 1% provision
has made for technical persons which shall be added to the work done value and
deducted alike VAT but shall be paid to the contractor on production of
necessary proof that he has employed technical persons to supervise the work.
The memo of payment recorded at
Pg.No. 24 of the M.B. is as follows:
Total work done value - 2,95,994/-
Add 4% VAT -
11,840/-
Add 1% technical persons -
2,900/-
Total: - 3,10,734/-
Deduct
recoveries - (-) 32,566/-
Paid to the
contractor - 2,78,168/-
Recoveries :
1. VAT - 11,840
2. IT - 6,960
3. Seig. - 5,216
4. NAC - 780
5. FSD - 7,770
Total - 32,566
The memo of payment shall be recorded has follows:
Work done value
limited to the - Rs. 2,90,509.37
Estimated value
Tender percentage 4.2% Less - (-)
Rs. 12,201.37
Rs.2,78,308.00
Add 4% VAT - Rs.
11,132.00
Add 1%
technical persons -
2,900.00
Deduct recoveries - (-) 30,235.00
Recoveries :
1. VAT - 11,132
2. IT - 6,234
3. Seig. - 5,216 -
4. NAC - 695
5. FSD - 6,958 Total
- 30,235
Amount to be paid - Rs.
2,62,105.00
Amount paid - Rs. 2,78,168.00
Excess paid - Rs. 16,063.00
The
excess payment of Rs.16,063/- need to be recovered and remitted to BRGF funds
inclusive of Rs.2,900/- towards employment of technical persons has no proof
was produced in support of employment of technical persons.
M.C.
SADASHIVAPET
procedural lapses (code – 9 (a)
(g) BRGF – EXECUTION OF WORKS UNDER BRGF – ISSUE OF
QUALITY CERTIFICATE BY THE THIRD PARTY – CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS – NOT COMPLIED
BEFORE PAYMENTS – IRREGULAR:
The National consultancy
for planning and engineering, the 3rd party assurance consultants, Hyderabad have issued
quality certificates for the works executed under BRGF.
While
issuing the quality certificates, the consultancy has made certain observations
for compliance before making payments to contractors.
In
respect of the following works, the consultancy have made the observations
against each
1.
Laying
of CC road from Kashetty Ramesh (H) to-
Side berms are to be provided
Anuradi Rachappa (H) – Voucher
No. 06 - 26.08.10- wherever necessary
Chq.No. 775862, dt. 26.08.10
2.
Laying
of CC road from A.Manohar (H) to NH.No. 09 -
1.Side berms not provided to
Voucher No. 18 – 16.07.10,
Chq.No. 199067, dt. 16.07.10-1) protect the edges of CC
road
2) BT filling not done for
expansion joints
But the deficiencies
pointed out in the observations have not been fulfilled before making payments
which is irregular and purpose of issue of Q.C. from the 3rd party
assurance consultants, Hyderabad
would not be served.
MC.SADASIVAPET
Excess payments (Code -13)
(h) CONSTRUCTION
OF WATER DRAIN FROM SMT. YADAMMA (H) TO MD. NAWAZ (H) IN SIDDAPUR COLONY –
EXCESS PAYMENTS – NEEDS RECOVERY – Rs. 6,679/-
1.
Administrative
sanction -CR No. 510, dt.28.02.09
2.
Technical
sanction -T/S No. 63,
dt.24.04.10
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 0.50 Lakhs
4.
Contractor - P.Sudhakar
5.
M.B.
No. - 92/09-10 Pg.No. 1 – 08
6.
Voucher
No. - 4, dt.16.04.10 & 13, 01.06.10
In
the above work, the length of the drain has per approved estimate was 26-00 RMT
and accordingly the payments was made as follows:
Total
work done value -44,554
Add
4% VAT - 1,782
46,336
Recoveries: Deductions - (-) 8,846
Amount
paid - 37,490
1.
VAT - 1,782
2.
IT - 1,038
3.
Seig. - 1,276
4.
NAC - 116
5.
EMD+QC - 4,634
Total - 8,846
In
the next bill the length of 29.3 RMT drain was admitted and payment made as
follows:
Total
work done value - 48,000
Add
4% VAT - 1,920
49,920
Recoveries: Deductions - (-) 5,751
- 44,169
1. VAT - 1,920 Previous payment - (-) 37,490
2. IT - 1,182 Excess payment - 6,679
3. Seig. - 1,276
4. NAC - 125
5.
EMD - 1,248
Total - 5,751
The payment made for 3.30 RMT length
of drain is irregular and in-admissible in audit and therefore the payment made
for Rs.6,679/- needs to be recovered from the person or persons responsible and
remitted to BRGF funds and fact intimated to audit.
MC.SADASIVAPET
Procedural lapses – (9(a))
(i) CONSTRUCTION
OF BALANCE WORK IN MUNICIPLE OFFICE BUILDING – ITEMS OF WORKS EXECUTED NOT
PROVIDED IN THE ESTIMATE – IRREGULAR – AMOUNT PAID Rs. 98,114/- HELD UNDER
OBJECTION:
1.
Administrative
sanction - CR No. 95, dt.27.12.10
2.
Technical
sanction - T/S
No. 315, dt.30.10.10
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 5.61 Lakhs
4.
Contractor - P.Anil Kumar
5.
M.B.
No. - 188/10-11 Pg.No. 1 – 46
6.
Voucher
No. - 12, dt.06.01.11
During the audit,
it is noticed that the following items of works have been executed and the cost
has been paid to the contractor, though these items have not been provided in
the approved estimates.
Qty. Rate
1.
Columns C1 & C2 - 3.22 x 5400.26 = 17,388.80
2.
Beams - 0.85 x 4712.54 = 4,005.60
= 21,394.40
3.
Engagement of JCB - 40 hrs. x 625
per/hr. = 25,000.00
4.
MS pipe Y 2 Round - 3 x 1400 = 4,200.00
5.
Molding - 105.60 x 450 = 47,520.00
Sq.Mtrs. = 98,114.00
The
execution of items of works not provided in the approved estimate is irregular
and in-admissible in audit and therefore the amount paid Rs. 98,114/- is held
under objection.
MC.SADASIVAPET
Procedural
lapses 9(a)
(j) LAYING OF CC
ROAD FROM EXISTING CC ROAD TO KUMMARI VADA – WARD NO. 5 –
CERTAIN ITEM OF WORKS EXECUTED NOT PROVIDED IN THE APPROVED ESTIMATE –
IRREGULAR – AMOUNT PAID HELD UNDER OBJECTION – Rs. 46,820/-
1. Administrative
sanction - CR No. 511, dt.26.02.09
2. Technical
sanction - T/S No. 315, dt.30.10.10
3. Estimated
cost - Rs. 2.70 Lakhs
4. Contractor - P.Sudhakar
5. M.B.
No. - 168/10-11 Pg.No. 1 – 24
6. Voucher
No. - 02, dt.28.10.10
During the course
of audit, it is noticed that the following item of works have been executed and
the cost have been paid to the contractor though these items have not been
provided in the approved estimates.
Qty.
Rate
1. CRS Masonery in CM (1:6) prop. - 7.53 x3263.82 = 24,576.56
2. Dump proof force with CC (1:3:4)
prop. – 45.39 x 173.85
= 7,891.05
Using 20 MM gauge metal with 50
MM thick quantity
3.
Flush
pointing to CRS Masonery WCM (1:3) -24.075x363.59/10 SQM = 875.16.
4.
S/F
of steel including fabrication charges
- 148.39 x 43 = 6,380.77
With binding etc., for culverts
5. Laying of slab on drain with CC
(1 ½ : 3) - 1.759 x
3878.15 = 6,821.66
Pro. Using 20 MM gauge metal
6.
Laying
shabad stone flooring - 24.90 x 2850 =
7,096.50
10
Sq.Mtrs. Total =Rs. 46,820.04
The execution of
items of works not provided in the approved estimate is irregular and
in-admissible in audit and therefore the amount paid Rs.46, 820/- is held under
objection.
MC.SADASIVAPET
Excess payments (code -13)
(k) LAYING OF CC
ROAD FROM EXISTING BT ROAD TO KALBAI IN WARD NO. 23 QUANTITY INCREASED AFTER CHECK
MEASUREMENT – EXCESS PAYMENT MADE – NEEDS RECOVERY – Rs. 20,791/-
1.
Administrative
sanction - CR No. 511, dt.26.02.09
2.
Technical
sanction - T/S
No. 65, dt.24.04.10
3.
Estimated
cost - Rs. 1,69,020
4.
Contractor - P.Sudhakar
5.
M.B.
No. - 135/10-11 Pg.No. 10 – 12
6.
Voucher
No. - 03, dt.18.08.10
On verification of the above said voucher an amount of Rs.1,50,755/- was
paid to the contractor and it is noticed that some quantities are changed after
check measurement as follows:
Construction
of un-reinforced item, joint and expressing of CC road with on 30 grade on specification
a. Check
measured for the quantity - 31.99 x 3512 = 1,12,348/-
b. Excess
quantity added in abstract - 5.92
x 3512 = 20,791/-
(work extended from
H.No.1-1-8/91 to 1-1-8/47)
It appears that
Executive authorities added the more quantity after check measurement was done,
without prior permission of the higher authorities, hence an amount of Rs.
20,791/- paid an excess to the contractor.
The same needs to be recovered from the person or persons responsible
and remitted to BRGF funds under intimation to audit.
M.C. Zaheerabad
Non
production of records (Code -11)
(l) WORKS – EXECUTION OF THE WORKS –
NON-PRODUCTION OF THE MB AND FILES ETC. –OBJECTED RS. 43,21,997/-
As seen from the cash book and vouchers book the following
payments were made to the contractors for execution the works. But the
concerned records like MBs, files containing the estimates, administrative
sanctions, agreements etc. were not produced for verification in Audit. Due to
non-production of the records the correctness of the expenditure could not be
checked in audit.
Hence
the expenditure of Rs._43,21,997/- as shown in the annexure could
not be admitted in Audit and held under objection and it is liable for
surcharge action.
S.No.
|
Vr.No.
Dt
|
MB
No.
|
Name
of the Work
|
Amount
|
1
|
1/14.5.10
|
ME/Office/10
|
C/o
office building permission of Municipal office Zaheerabad
|
1500000/-
|
2
|
3/3.7.10
|
-do-
|
-do-
|
11,59,001/-
|
3
|
7/21.9.10
|
ME/14/09 & 45/10
|
-do-
|
11,61,448/-
|
4
|
8/-do-
|
ME/46/10
|
-do-
Water supply, fittings is to be done
|
77,839/-
|
5
|
9/22.9.10
|
ME/47/10
|
-do-
sanitary fittings
|
2,63,709/-
|
6
|
10/
-do-
|
ME/44/10
|
-do-
Aluminum doors & Windows
|
1,60,000/-
|
Total
|
43,21,997/-
|
MC Zaheerabad Code No.11
(M) REMITTANCE OF I.T. TO INCOME TAX
OFFICER, MEDAK - REMITTANCE PARTICULARS NOT PRODUCED – OBJECTED – RS.
2,54,549/-
During the audit of BRGF accounts
of M.C. Zaheerabad an amount of Rs.
2,54,549/- was drawn and paid to I.T officer, Medak towards I.T. charges recovered
from the work bills relating to Venkat
Sai Agencies,Hyderabad.
But the correctness of the
deductions of I.T., could not be
verified due non-production of the contractor ledger, vouchers and contra
entries in the cash book. In
view of the above, the amount paid towards IT deducted at source and
consequential remittance to I.T Department Medak cannot be admitted in audit
and held under objections.
M.C. ZAHEERABAD Code No. 9(a)
(n) DIVERSTION OF FUND - FUND TRANSFERRED TO RAJIV
NAGARA BATA SCHEME – IRREGULAR – NOT ADMITTED IN AUDIT HELD UNDER OBJECITON–
RS. 25,64,308/-
In Vr. NO. 5/21.9.10 an amount of Rs. 25,64,308/- was drawn and transferred to
Rajiv Nagara Bata account vide cheque. No. 660386 during the year under audit.
The
diversion of the BRGF Grant is inadmissible and contrary to the guidelines. It
implies the mi-utilization of the fund.
Immediate
action would need to be taken for refund and proper utilization besides
imposing the penalty on the defaulter and crediting the penalty to BRGF Fund.
M.C. ZAHEERBAD Code No.9(a)
(O) EXCESS FUNDS UTILIZED THAN THE SANCTION
FOR SPECIFIC WORK – IRREGULAR NEEDS RECTIFICATION– OBJECTED. : Rs. 13,68,997/-
During the year under audit of M.C.
Zaheerabad for the year 2010-11 an amount of Rs. 29,53,000/- was sanctioned in
action plan for construction of Municipal Office building for completion of spill
over work in Ground + 1st floor.
But the executive authority did not
follow the annual action plan and expenditure was incurred at whims and
fancies; huge amount of Rs. 43,21,997/- was spent for the completion of the
spillover work of Municipal building.
Thus an amount of Rs. 13, 68,997/- excess incurred without the administrative
approval. It hampered the grounding of other works approved in the action plan.
In view of the above the excess
utilized amount of Rs. 13,68,997/- cannot be admitted in audit and held under
objection.
M.C.ZAHEERABAD Code No.9 (a)
(P) NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE METER AND CONNECTION
CHARGES TO MPL BUILDING DRAWN AND PAID TO DEE [OP]
APCPDCL SANGAREDDY – WORK TAKEN UP OTHER THAN THE ACTION PLAN– IRREGULAR.
During the audit of
BRGF of M.C Zaheerabad for the year 2010-11 an amount of Rs. 14,000/- and
another amount of Rs. 8400/- was drawn vide Vr.No. 3/15.7.10 & 4/15.7.10
respectively towards new electrical service meter connection charges and 5 KM meter charges to Municipal building
Zaheerabad.
But
on verification of CEO ZP Medak
proceeding, it is noticed that the said work has not been sanctioned in
the approved action plan.
Hence
the expenditure is treated irregular and un-authorized.
M.C.SANGAREDDY
Diversion and mis-utilization of the fund
code -03
(Q) DIVERSION OF HUGE AMOUNT OF BRGF TO THE OTHER SCHEME AND PAYMENTS MADE
NOT ADMITTED IN AUDIT:
The audit on the
accounts of BRGF of M.C. Sangareddy was taken up in the month of July 2011, but
could not be completed due to non-production of the records. However, from the
cash book huge fund diversion was noticed as detailed below.
1
|
Amounts drawn from the BRGF
A/c w.e.f 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011
|
Rs. 157.264
lakhs
|
2
|
Amount of expenditure as per
the Action –Plan 2010-11
|
Rs. 47.18
lakhs
|
3
|
Amount of Diversion to the
other than BRGF
|
Rs. 110.07
lakhs
|
The same was brought to
the notice of the Commissioner, M.C. Sangareddy through the Half Margin letter
No. Spl. .02,dated:25.7.2011. In response
to the half margin letter the Commissioner Sangareddy has himself admitted the
fund diversion through the Lr.No. 16721/2011/E1 of M.C. Sangareddy dated:
02.08.2011by explaining certain reasons and promised to rectify the defect by
refunding the amount which he failed to do so. Immediate action needs to be
taken for refund of the amount beside penalty on defaulter.
ZP ENGINEERING WINGS:
EE PRI SANGAREDDY
-Non remittance of
deduction (Code -10)
(R) DEDUCTIONS MADE IN THE WORK
BILLS – DEPOSITS NOT REMITTED TO THE CONCERNED HEADS OF ACCOUNTS/DEPARTMENTS –
NEEDS REMITTANCE Rs. 3689120/-
As detailed below, deductions towards
Income tax, Seigniorage charges and VAT etc., were made in the work bills paid to the
contractors during the year under report. But the deductions so made were not
remitted to the concerned heads of accounts/departments. The Non-remittance of
the deposits to the concerned heads/departments stops revenue flow to the
Government exchequer in time. The head wise deductions are as follows S
1. S.Charges Rs. 1203969/-
2. VAT Rs. 1423481/-
3. IT Rs. 934374/-
4. NAC Rs. 104192/-
5. L.CESS Rs. 23104/-
___________
Rs.3689120/-
___________
Immediate action needs to be taken to remit
the amount of Rs.3689120/- as shown in the annexure under intimation to the
audit.
Non production of records (Code -11)
(S) WORKS – EXECUTION OF THE WORKS –
NON-PRODUCTION OF THE MB AND FILES ETC. –OBJECTED Rs. 7628331/-
As seen from the cash book the following payments were made
to the contractors for execution the works. But the concerned records like MBs,
files containing the estimates, administrative sanctions, agreements etc. were
not produced for verification in Audit. Non-production of the records does not
substantiate the correctness of the expenditure.
Hence
the expenditure of Rs.7628331/- as shown in the annexure could not be admitted
in Audit and held under objection and it is liable for surcharge action.
Non production of records (Code -11)
(T)
PAYMENT
MADE TO ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPT - CONNECTED RECORDS AND FILES NOT PRODUCED –OBJECTED `.100000/-
Through
the Vr.No.12/21.4.10 an amount of Rs.100000/- was drawn and paid to Joint
Director, Animal Husbandry, Sanga Reddy towards construction of Kangti
building.
There
is no point in transferring of the fund
to the JD, Animal husbandry for construction of the building when EE PRI
himself competent executive authority with ample technical know –how. Further,
the sanction of administrative authority i.e. higher power committee was not
obtained produced to audit. It does not reflect bona fide transaction.
In support of the expenditure the required
records i.e utilization certificates measurement book, files and other records
were not produced.
In
view of the above, the expenditure of Rs. 1 00,000/- could not be admitted in
audit and held under objection.
Others
(Code -18)
(U)
GRANTS RECEIVED NOT ADJUSTED IN THE ACCOUNT – OBJECTED Rs. 14165000/-
During
the year an amount of Rs.14165000/- was received from the Zilla Parished Medak
Dist towards the grant for the year 2010-11 vide Procgs.No.C2/1076/BRGF/2010 dt
3.2.11 vide DD.No.746742/9.3.11 the same was acknowledged by the authority
concerned on 10.3.2011.
But
the said amount was pending adjustment till the close of audit, the inaction of
the executive authority in adjustment of the grants would adversely affect the
development activities and loss would also substantiated by losing of interest
for the delayed.
Therefore
immediate action would need to be taken to adjust the said amount in the bank
concerned under intimation to audit.
Variations in accounts (Code.No.1)
(V) MAINTANANCE OF ACCOUNTS:
On
verification of the cash, bank statement and receipt and expenditure statement
following irregularities were noticed.
- During the financial year and amount of Rs.1649153/- was shown in the expenditure side of the cash book and receipt and expenditure statement. But as seen in the cash book and amount of Rs.3412752/- was remitted to the departments concerned which is contrary to the figures shown in the statement and utilization. (Vr.No.16/11.5.10 Rs.1028407/- and Vr.No.191/9.11.10 Rs.2384345/-)
- During the fiscal year certain FDs were realized and new FDs were made but the FDs realized were shown as income and new FDs made during the year as expenditure which is irregular accounting system. The income and expenditure by the way of FDs must be shown as opening and closing balances in the account.
- On verification of bank scrolls certain amount were received and deducted from the account form 11/10 to 3/11 the said receipt and deductions were neither shown in the cash book nor exhibited in the receipt and expenditure statement for which reasons not explained to audit.
- On verification of UC Proforma I(a) lump sum shown instead of grants received, amount allocated from the other source and balances available after deduction the expenditure which is not correct.
Therefore immediate action
would need to be taken to maintain proper account and produce to audit for
verification
Non
production of records (Code -11)
(W) FIXED DEPOSITS MADE CONNECTED RECORDS NOT
PRODUCED –OBJECTED `.5000000/-
During the year an amount of Rs.5000000/- was transferred towards term (Fixed)
Deposit in the month of December -2011 with in the same Bank i.e Syndicate
Bank, Sanga Reddy branch.
The
orders from the competent authority / or provisions under which fixed deposits
were made could not explained to audit.
More
over, the fixed deposit bond has not been produced for physical verification
along with the register of TDRs. It
should be watched that the same is re-deposited in the BRGF account with the
interest accrued thereon
Violation of rules (Code -9a)
(X) EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS INDIVIDUAL
BENEFIT INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /CREATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSETS
IRREGULAR –OBJECTED `.200000/-
Through the Vr.No.29/31.5.10 an
amount of Rs.200000/- was the drawn and paid to Superintendent Engineer towards
the purchase of concrete millers. The two numbers of concrete millers were
purchased and supplied to the two individuals of particular community.
The above work is not included in
the list of priority works. Tractors with trolleys and agricultural implements
can be purchased and supplied to the SHGsof 20small/marginal SC/ST farmers. The
above expenditure incurred for the purchase and concrete millers could not be
admitted in audit and needs recovery from the person or persons responsible.
EE PRI SIDDIPET -Others -18
(Y) BRGF 20% ZP SHARE
– DETAILS OF THE ASSESTS CREATED – COMPLETION OF THE WORKS – WORK WISE SAVINGS
– DETAILES NOT MAINTAINED–OBJECTED-Rs.
111.82 LAKHS
As seen from the progress report for
the month of March 2011 relating to the implementation of the BRGF programme
under EE PRI Division Siddipet, the progress of the civil works is as follows.
S.No.
|
year
|
Est. cost
(in lakhs)
|
Total expenditure
(in
lakhs)
|
No.of works
|
No.of works completed
|
No.of incomplete works
|
Amount involved in incomplete works (in lakhs)
|
1
|
2007-08
|
611.50
|
551.36
|
106
|
95
|
11
|
60.14
|
2
|
2008-09
|
142.80
|
129.01
|
82
|
74
|
8
|
13.70
|
3
|
2009-10
|
121.21
|
110.77
|
90
|
82
|
8
|
10.44
|
4
|
2010-11
|
108.00
|
80.46
|
69
|
60
|
9
|
27.54
|
983.51
|
871.6
|
347
|
311
|
36
|
111.82
|
The
administrative sanction accorded for the works during the year 2007-08, 2008-09
and 2009-10, if not started, should have
been elapsed as it remains valid for the
one year from the date of sanction as
per the provisions of D’code and APFC code. Hence, those works, administrative
sanction of which has been elapsed due to non-starting, need to be cancelled.
INCOMPLETE WORKS - FUNDS
LOCKED IN:
As mentioned in the above statement, 36 works under the scheme have
not been completed as yet and works could not be completed within the time.
Hence, it is obvious that the funds amounting to Rs. 111.82 lakhs are blocked
in the incomplete works and it also implies non-achievement of the objective of
the scheme and the expenditure hitherto incurred rendered unfruitful.
Further
the executive authority failed to; 1) prepare the completion reports for each
work taken up and completed under the BRGF; 2) prepare savings or otherwise
under the each work; 3) maintain the assets register; 4) prepare the details
about transfer of the assets to the stake holders.
11.
WORKING OF
INTERNAL CONTROL MECHANISM – NOT UP TO THE MARK
At District level, after approval of
the plan, sanctions for execution of the works were accorded and accordingly
funds were released for execution of the work. It did not come forth during the
audit as to whether any group of the officers was formed to inspect of the
execution of the works at the ground level to ensure the successful
implementation.
After sanction of the works, it did
not come forth as to whether list of the works which could not be started if
any was obtained from the executive agencies. And it was also not watched
whether there were any savings in case of the completion of the work below the
estimated cost. The fund released for works which were not started and savings
will be susceptible for mis-utilization or diversion. No effective monitoring
in this aspect could be noticed during the audit.
It did not come forth as to whether
the works were checked by the quality control authorities and it was satisfied
with the quality of the works.
There are not evidences with regard transfer
of the assets to the stake holders, display of name boards and taking of
photographs of the works completed.
There is no evidence of the conduct
of social audit and developmental impact of the scheme was not measured
Thus,
working of internal control needs improvement.
The impact of the development will be felt if there are
takers; the takers are developed by creation of the awareness among the stake
holders. The preparation of assets shall be with alongside preparation of the
takers.
Auditor District
Audit officer,
State
Audit Medak at Sangareddy
Compiled by
V. Ramesh Sr. Auditor
Assisted by
J. Kishan pamar Sr. auditor
No comments:
Post a Comment