In first case, a loss to the tone of Rs 156.19 million was noticed during the financial year 2013-14, in the office of Executive Engineer (XEN), Flood Irrigation Division D I Khan that local office used to procure and dump huge quantity of stones every year for throwing into Indus River during flood season with the contention to protect local Abadies, spurs and guide bund from destruction. The review of the monthly accounts from June 2009 to June 2015 (only six years) shows that stones valuing Rs 156.19 million were procured through various contractors, dumped on the river banks for further use. This state of affairs clearly depicts that the quantity would be 10 times more than shown in the statement because these pertains to one month per year based information.
The recurring expenditure on yearly basis termed as recurring loss to the public exchequer on the one hand while on the other it is not the final solution during flood 2010 damages were again occurred. The audit held that the procurement and use of stone is just the wastage of public resources and cannot be termed as the only solution to protect the locals from the flood. There might be more scientific systems and procedures and by adopting the same once for all the issue cane be resolved.
The issue was pointed out in November 2015 and the management replied that final reply will be furnished after verification of the relevant record. The audit requested the department repeatedly for holding Departmental Accounts Committee (DAC) meeting however, it was not convened till finalization of the audit report. The audit has recommended that the matter needs to be looked into for amicable solution of the issue.
In second a case of the loss of Rs 80.90 million noticed due to consolidation of two items from Composite Scheduled Rates (CSR) 2012 in the office of Executive Engineer, Peshawar Canal Irrigation Division Peshawar during the financial year 2013-14. In the case it was noticed that improvement and restoration of Bara River and revamping of Budni Nullah was awarded to different contractors. In the BOQ (Bill of Quantities) of the scheme as well as TS (Technical Sanction) an item of work @ Rs 151.08 pm on the basis of combination of two items of CSR 2012 was provided and accordingly paid.
But, the inclusion of an irrelevant item 'extra for wet earth work' after dressing was neither relevant nor required at site because after carrying out the dressing in dry channel/drains the adding of extra for wet was not possible. This clearly indicated that the inclusion and combination of an irrelevant rate of Rs 45.98 pm meant extra for wet earth work in the already completed rate of Rs 105.10 pm, which was undue favour to the contractor and the government was put to sustain a loss of Rs 80.90 million. The loss occurred due to undue favour to the contractor and violation of provisions of CSR 2012. The loss was pointed out in August 2014 and the management stated detailed reply will be submitted after consulting the record.
The audit requested the department repeatedly for holding of the DAC meeting, however DAC meeting was not convened till finalization of audit report. The audit has recommended conducting inquiry, fix responsibility and recovery of loss from the persons at fault. In third case a loss of Rs 17.07 million was noticed in the office of Executive Engineer Flood Irrigation Division D.I. Khan during the financial year 2014-15.
In the case it was noticed that various contractors were paid including payments on account of Barrow pit excavation undressed lead upto 50 meter, extra for wet earth work and supply and dumping/stacking of stones at site. However, the deduction of voids was not made, despite the facts that in certain cases voids from the earth work was deducted and converted into solid. Non-deduction of voids resulted into loss of Rs 17.07 million to the public exchequer.
The audit had held that quantities of work done were required to have been measured and allowed after applying multiplication factor for converting loose measurement into solid as required under the provision of rules and standard contract agreement of the department which was not done.
The audit had attributed the occurrence of loss due to non-adherence to provision of rules and standard contract agreement of the department. However, when pointed out in November 2015, the management replied that final reply will be furnished after verification of the relevant record.
The Audit repeatedly called for holding of the DAC meeting, which was not convened till finalization of this report. The audit has recommended investigation into the matter, fixing of responsibility and recovery of from those responsible.
In another case a loss of Rs 15.26 million had been noticed during the financial year 2013-14, in the office of Executive Engineer Peshawar Canal Irrigation Division Peshawar wherein an amount of Rs 15.26 million was paid to contractors on account of silt clearance of the different RDs of Hazar Khani and Kabul River Canal in the KRC Sub-Division of the local office. The record showed that tender was floated for the said work in December 2013.
Similar nature was also carried in the same Sub Division on the basis of tender floated in the month of June 2013 for the same year 2013-14. The contractors executed agreements and started work in the same canals and they were accordingly paid @ 43% below, which indicates that KRC Sub Division on work in the same RDs was carried out twicely which resulted into a loss of Rs 15.26 million.
The record further revealed that in the first instance only excavation of silt was paid while in the second instance excavation alongwith transportation was paid. Audit held that in the first instance the lower rate of the contractor was ignored due to extending favour to him.
The loss occurred as the contractor quoted unreasonably lower rate and the local office extended undue favour to him. When pointed out in August 2014, the management stated that detailed reply will be submitted after consulting the record.
Audit repeatedly directed the convening of the DAC meeting, but it was not convened. Therefore, the audit had recommended conducting inquiry, fixing responsibility apart from recovery of the loss from the concerned persons.