audit report sindh agriculture university tandojam, sindh

8/4/2019 Audit Report Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, Sindh

1/63

AUDIT INSPECTION REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS RECORD OF SINDH

AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, TANDOJAM FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 and 2010-11

INTRODUCTION

The audit inspection on the accounts record of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for theFY 2009-10 and 2010-2011 was conducted by FAT-VI headed by Mr. Mahfooz Ahmed Bhatti,

Director, during the period w.e.f 4-08-2011 to 11-08-2011

Ten percent of the record was selected for detail audit while the rest were reviewed generally, the

result of the audit is embodied in the succeeding paragraphs.

INCUMBENCY:

Following Vice Chancellor/Vice Chancellors hold the charge of Sindh Agriculture University

Tandojam for the period under audit.

S.No Name of Officers Period

1. Mr. Abdul Qadir Mughal 2009-2010

2. Mr. Abdul Qadir Mughal 2010-2011


2/63

SECTIONI

PREVIOUS AUDIT

Previous audit for the year 2009-10 was not conducted whereas the audit of 2008-09 was

conducted by the audit party headed by Mr. Gulsher, Audit Officer of office of the Director

General Audit Sindh Karachi. Report was issued to this office by the Director General AuditSindh Karachi. All the Audit Observations/Paras issued by the last visiting Audit Party are still

pending. The authority concerned is requested to make strenuous effort for early compliance of

said report in an annotated form for further necessary action.


3/63

SECTION-II (CURRENT AUDIT)

PART-I (SERIOUS IRREGULARITIES)

Para-01 Payment made in absence of sanctioned strength of Rs.1.146 billion

The powers of sanction of various subordinate authorities in the Civil Department in the matter

of creation of Permanent or Temporary posts are specified in Schedule-I and II to the Bookof Financial Powers. Besides sanctioned strength of each post is determined and approved by the

competent authority according to para-108 of General Financial Rules, volume-I.

During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, for the FY 2009-10 and

2010-11, it was observed that employees are recruited without having sanctioned strength. Due

to this, it is easy to appoint any person by creating any post in any department.

As a drawback of such an omission, huge staff had been appointed which had maintained an

undue burden over the financial resources of the University.

It was also observed that University has no planning regarding the utilization of these employees

as the employees of planning department are not even acquainted with the work of planning and

qualified employee who is an electrical engineer is working as a care taker of New Rest House

Building.

Audit is of the view that vacancies are created by considering the utilization and need of an

employee and terms of reference (TOR) are made to clearly mark the duties and responsibilitiesof the post occupant. But, contrary to such a basic management principal, hundreds of employees

have been appointed without reasonable justification and sanctioning of strength.

You are requested to justify the reason for not maintain/developing mechanism of sanctioned

strength of employees to the audit.

In absence of any valid justification the whole recruitment system will be considered as

improper/irregular.


4/63

Para-02 Irregular payment of residential telephone charges amounting to Rs. 6.316 million

According to Rule-88 of Sindh Financial Rules, Volume-I, Every public officer is expected toexercise the same vigilance in respect of the expenditure incurred from public money as a person

of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.

During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and

2010-2011, it was observed that a payment of Rs. 6.316 million was made on account of

reimbursement of telephone charges without having a allowances statute or notification ofSindh/Federal Government to give residential telephone facility to the lecturers and professors

and other administrative staff whose job does not requires any active communication with the

government officials.

Audit holds the objection that majority of university employees are of teaching related and there

is no justification behind allowing residential telephone reimbursement facility.

The following observations were also made.

1. The residential telephone facility was given without justification and setting aside the factthe lecturers and professors of government colleges are not provided with this facility.

2. The telephone bills for which the reimbursement claimed were not available in therecord.

3. There was no record available to verify the payment made to the individuals and theiracknowledgments.

4. Statement showing the allotted numbers and designation was not produced.

Due to allowing such a facility, the university has caused a loss of 6.316 which need to be fullyjustified.

You are requested to justify such an excess/irregular payment made by allowing residential

telephone facility or the amount may be recovered from the facility takers.


5/63

Para-03 Non-disclosure of savings while preparing budget/Income & Expenditure

Statement amounting Rs. 938.178 million

According to para 24 of International Public Sector Accounting Standards, Cash Basis (Issued

January 2003, updated 2006-2007), Entities are also encouraged to disclose information about

compliance with legislative, regulatory or other externally-imposed regulations. Wheninformation about compliance is not included in the financial statements, it may be useful for a

note to refer to any documents that include that information. Knowledge of non-compliance is

likely to be relevant for accountability purposes and may affect a users assessment of the

entitys performance and direction of future operations. It may also influence decisions about

resources to be allocated to the entity in the future.

During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, for the FY 2009-10 and

2010-11, it was observed that budget/Income & Expenditure Statement is prepared without

showing the balances of savings amounting to Rs. 938.178 million, which are available in

various bank accounts as provided in the annexure attached.

The country is going through severe financial crises and universitys demand for grants despite

having such huge savings at hands is apprehensive. Due to not declaring the savings in the

budget as well as in income and expenditure statement the university used to demand fresh

grants every year. The delegated authority was kept in dark regarding the savings and new

budget demands were posed setting aside the provision of savings.

Audit found that due to large savings, the university authority is giving unjustified allowances to

the university employees i.e 45% house rent instead of 30%, washing allowance to grade IIIemployees, conveyance charges, residential telephone facility, honorarium, etc and putting

constant pressure over the government to provide the financial assistance and in other case

threatens to halt the educational activities.

Oblivious to their prime duty, the universities used to boycott classes and organize protest rallies

for the demand of financial assistance, as the same had been witnessed in the past.

Audit hold the objection that why such huge savings were never disclosed while preparing

budget or producing the income/expenditure statement? And by doing so, the university

authorities seem to be involved in mounting pressure over the government and getting benefits of

HEC and Provincial Government funding.

The audit team called for clarification vide Letter No. DGAS/Annual Audit 2010-2011/FAT-

VI/CS-V/2011/11 dated 9-8-2011. The university authorities replied vide their letter No.

Acctt/Audit 2010-2011/1601/0f 2011 dated 12-08-2011 that Actual revenue, expenditure and

balances are placed before the Statuary body of University.


6/63


7/63

Para-04 Excess payment on account of ph.d allowance amounting to Rs. 55,000/-

As per letter Revision of Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Vice Chancellors, dated

19th December 2008, the vice chancellors were given special package for which minimum salary

was being fixed at 180,000 with annual increment of 10,000 and house rent and facility ofutilities.

During the audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY 2009-2010 and 2010-

2011, it was observed that Honorable Vice Chancellor is getting separate ph.d allowance despite

the fact that those who use to get their salaries under special package are not entitled to get the

benefit of allowance attached with the National Pay Scale.

In this regard, it is requested that the excess payment made on account of ph.d allowance my

kindly be recovered under intimation to audit.


8/63

Para-05 Irregular appointment of Assistant Professors and Professors having ph.d by

not appointing them in tenure track system.

According to para (e ) of the Appointment and Promotions, Model Tenure Track Process Statutes

ver. 2.0 January 1, 2008 ofHigher Education Commission, Once a University/Degree AwardingInstitution has adopted the Tenure Track System of Appointment no further appointment of phD

degree holders may be made as Assistant Professors under the old (BPS) system. Such faculty

members must be recruited under the Tenure Track scheme.

During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture Univeristy Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and

2010-2011, it was observed that in complete contravention of Higher Education Policies, the

university had appointed Assistant Professors and Professors in regular scheme and not in

Tenure Track System. Details provided in annexure.

It was observed that such an irregularity was deliberately made to benefit the teaching staff by

proving them safe haven under the system where performance is evaluated in immeasurable

criteria. Contrary to that the tenure tract provides complete process regarding the evaluation of

teachers performance and assessment of his/her contribution.

It is also pertinent to mention that university is taking grants from the higher education

commission regarding various expenditures but not observing the rules and regulations which are

aimed at improving the quality of education in the universities.

Due to not appointing the teaching staff in tenure track system, the academic staff finds

themselves free from any check and balance and this has given them opportunity to get benefits

without providing the expected services and output in terms of research, invention and

innovation.

You are requested to justify the disregard of HEC policy regarding the appointment and

providing benefit to the academic staff by keeping them aloof from rigorous check and balance

and performance appraisal as stipulated in the procedures of Tenure Track.

In absence of any valid reason, the appointments made will be treated as irregular and

unjustified.


9/63

Para-06 Fraudulent purchase of electronic, stationery, computer items, mobile cards

etc amounting to millions of Rupees.

According to Appendix 18-A of Sindh Financial Rules, Volume-I, Every officer should realize

fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by government

through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held responsible for any lossarising from fraud and negligence on the part of any other government officer to the extent to

which it may be shown that he contributed to the loss by his own actions or negligence.


2010-2011 the requisition was made to provide the record and USB-Stick was also provided to

the concerned sections for providing electronic data of payroll and other record maintained in

electronic form.

While scrutinizing the provided e-data, the files of blank cash memos, Quotations were found

which were inadvertently copied by the staff members. It has become obvious that the purchasesmade on such cash memos and quotations are fake and fraudulent as the cash memos are

computer generated.

Further to create cash memos and quotation letters of other stores in not only illegal but also a

serious criminal offence.

In this regard a high level inquiry may be called to probe the matter. The purchases made over

such cash memos and quotations may get physically verified and amount of consumable articles

may be recovered from the person at fault.

It is suggested that matter may be taken up at high level and case may be lodged against theofficials involved.


10/63

Para-07 Unjustified exaggeration in budget estimates by including vacant posts

amounting to Rs. 124.491 million

According to Article 84 of Audit code, it is an essential function of the Audit to bring to light not

only cases of clear irregularities but every matter which in its judgment appears to involve

improper expenditure or waste of public money or stores, even though the accounts may be in

order. It is thus not sufficient to see that sundry rules or orders have been observed but it is of

equal importance to see that the broad principles of propriety are borne in mind not only by the

DDO but by the sanctioning authority.

During the audit of the Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-

2011, it was observed that while preparing budget estimates the university is in the practice of

including vacant post and their pay estimates. Naturally, it is a budget making process that

vacant posts are mentioned and their estimates are also included but the case here is quite

different from others as

1. University has no sanctioned strength.2. There are no TORs for employees.3. Though included in the budget, the vacant posts were not advertised.

Audit holds the view that such an exaggeration was made in budget estimates to bulge the totals

and demand grants accordingly.

Our education sector is getting less proportion of annual budget and major chunk is transferred to

the universities at the altar of primary education and in such a situation making exaggerated

budgets and making demand for grants is an irregularity.

It is against the canons of accounting practices to fabricate the budget and in this regard you are

requested to justify such a practice.


11/63

Para-08 Non-preparation of Financial Statements/Regular Reports

According to Para 4.12.1.1 of the Accounting Policies and Procedure Manual, Grants -in-aid

and contributions refer to monies given by the Government to various public bodies and

institutions for which no exchange of goods and services is required. These bodies typically

include educational institutions, charities, welfare bodies and health institutions. Unlessspecifically exempted by the Government all grants-in-aid and contributions are provided to

fulfil a defined objective or purpose.

4.12.1.6 Where conditions have been attached to the utilisation of grant money, the delegated

authority who approved the grant is responsible for ensuring the conditions have been met. This

may require, where necessary, the provision of regular reports by the grant recipient or auditedfinancial statements by an independent auditor to the delegated authority. Where grant monies

are provided on a reimbursement basis, signed copies of the relevant bills and vouchers of the

recipient should also be obtained. The timing and regularity of such reports and disclosures shall

be set out in the grant agreement between the delegated authority and the grant recipient.

Contrary to the above provision and the procedure mentioned therein, the authority recipient of

grant should provide audited financial statement or regular reports to the delegated authority.But, during the audit of the accounts of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, for the FY

2009-10 and 2010-2011, it has been observed that university has not prepared/produced any

financial statements/regular reports to the audit.

Due to not maintaining this statement, the audit could not verify the availability of assets and

liabilities and the financial position of the University cannot be ascertained.

The audit had asked for clarification vide letter No. DGAS/Annual Audit 2010-2011/FAT-

VI/CS-V/2011/6 dated 6-8-2011, but no reply was received.

You are requested to justify the non-preparation of Financial Statements/Regular Reports.


12/63

Para-09 Mixed medical allowance without proper justification amounting to Rs.

109.075 Million



improper expenditure or waste of public money or stores, even though the accounts may be inorder. It is thus not sufficient to see that sundry rules or orders have been observed but it is of



During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture Univeristy Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and

2010-2011, it was observed that University used to given Rs 2000 and Rs 3000 as a medical

allowance when the medical allowance was not allowed to the employees above grade 16 and

were also given Rs 2000 as medical allowance to the employees below grade 16 who were

entitled to receive Rs 500 as per Government of Sindh notification.

Such an irregularity was pointed out many times in audit observations and audit reports but the

irregularity was never taken serious.

During audit it came to the knowledge that when the university authorities realized that their

allowed medical allowance is less than medical allowance allowed to grade 19 to 22 employees

of the Federal and Provincial Government they suddenly decided to develop a mixed medical

allowance where the minimum medical allowance was set at Rs. 3000 and other employees were

allowed to draw 15% of their basic pay scales only if their 15% of basic is more than Rs. 3000.

It is quite baffling for the audit that how such mixed medical allowance structure can be

developed without having basis and justification.

Audit holds the opinion that such a concoction is only made to serve interests and such an

irregularity needs full justification.

In this regard, you are requested to kindly justify the adaptation of mixed medical allowances or

the recovery may be made from official concerned under intimation to audit.


13/63

Para-10 Excess payment in terms of orderly allowance amounting to Rs. 4.719 million

According to the rules regarding the grant of orderly allowance, The officers in BS -20, 21 and

22 posted in the Civil Secretariat are allowed to opt either for the provision of residence Orderlyor for Orderly Allowance.

During the audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-2011,

it was observed that University has allowed orderly allowance despite the fact the orderly

allowance is only allowed to the officers of BS-20, 21 and 22 who are posted or working in Civil

Secretariat and there is no provision available to grant such an allowance to other employees.

It is further observed that university has allowed various allowances to the employees without

having proper justification only to favor the university employees.

You are requested to justify the allowance of orderly allowance to the university staff withouthaving approved statute/order regarding the admissibility of such an allowance to the university

employees and the payments made in access may be recovered at the earliest under intimation to

audit.


14/63

Para-11 Irregular operation of bank accounts

According to Article 39 of the Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam 1977,

(1)There shall be a fund for the University to be called the University fund to which shall becredited all moneys received by the University from fees, donations, trusts, bequests,

endowments, contributions, grants and other sources.


2010-11, it was observed that university had not created a single bank account for such a fund

but various bank accounts are being maintained separately for fees, donations, trusts,

endowments, contributions, grants and other sources.

Not maintaining a single bank account for the fund, the University Authorities had created more

than 50 bank accounts in which numerous transactions are being carried out on daily basis.

Audit holds the objection that why so many bank accounts were opened whereas the University

Act only gives the provision of single bank account?

Due to maintaining fifty bank accounts it is not possible for the audit to verify/trace the

transactions/payments made by the University Authorities. Further due to maintaining various

bank accounts, the authorities have also compromised the internal control and possible

occurrence of fraud.

In this regard you are requested to justify the operation of various bank accounts and provide the

details of amount transferred from one account to another so that audit may verify theauthenticity of amount drawn/transferred.


15/63

Para-12 Non-deposit of flood relief money - Rs.2.429 million

According to Rule-28 of General Financial Rules, Volume 1, No amount due to government

should be left outstanding without sufficient reason and where any dues appear to be

irrecoverable the order of the competent authority for their adjustments must be sought.


2010-2011, it was observed the university had maintained a SAU Flood Relief Fund under

account No # 00847900202503 at Habib Bank Limited Tandojam but a balance of Rs.2,429,774/- was available with the university as provided in the bank statement.

Audit holds the objection that the amount was collected for the flood relief purposes but the same

was not provided to the government at the time of need. The amount was to be created to the

Prime Minister Relief Fund but the same was retained without reason.

In this regard you are requested to justify the non-deposit of flood relief money and the amount

may kindly be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund under intimation to audit.


16/63

Para-13 Un-audited accounts of Endowment Fund - Rs 3.45 Million

According to para 29 of Sindh Agriculture University Endowment Fund Rules 2011, the

accounts of the Fund shall be audited by the Chartered Accountant, appointed by the Syndicate,within four months from the end of a financial year. The Audit Report shall be submitted to the

Syndicate, through the Management Committee with such annotations as may be required.

During the annual of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-

2011, it was observed that despite such a provision in the rules of endowment fund, the accounts

were not audited. Due to this, the audit could not reasonably assure the transparency of

transaction carried out from the endowment fund.

You are requested to justify such an anomaly, further the audit of endowment fund may be made

at the earliest and the report may kindly be provided to the audit for further scrutiny.


17/63

Para-14 Contempt of Supreme Courts orders by appointing retired personals

According to section 14 of Estacode:

(1) A retired civil servant shall not be re-employed under, unless such re-employment is

necessary in the public interest and is made with the prior approval of the authority next abovethe appointing authority:

Provided that, where the appointing authority is the President, such re-employment may beordered with the approval of the President.

During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-2011, it

was observed that despite provision in rule and clear verdicts from Honorable Supreme Court of

Pakistan regarding not appointing retired officials, the university had appointed retired personalswithout observing the codal formalities. E.g the posts were not advertised or the fair chance was

not given to the competitors to prove their suitability.

You are requested to justify the reappointment of retired personals and disregard of Honorable

Supreme Courts directions by reappointing the retired officials at the earliest or the retired

personals who have been reappointed may be removed from their services under intimation to

Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan and audit.


18/63

Para-15 Unjustified payment of Deanship/Chairmanship allowance amounting to Rs.

1.360 million

According to Article 84 of Audit code, it is an essential function of the Audit to bring to light notonly cases of clear irregularities but every matter which in its judgment appears to involve






it was observed that University has allowed Deans and Chairmans of Faculty and Department to

draw deanship/chairmanship allowance without any approved statute regarding the allowance. It

is pertinent to mention that such an allowance is not given/sanctioned by Federal/Provincial

Governments.

During discussion with the accounts staff, it was mentioned that the post of Deans/Chairmans are

only available in the Universities therefore they have been allowed such an allowance. Further

they told that Deanship/Chairmanship is an additional duty which they have to perform for which

this allowance has been allowed.

Audit holds the objection that where the Deans and Chairmans are performing their duties as

administrative staff their subject lectures are also reduced accordingly and they used to opt few

subjects and deliver 2 to 3 lectures a weeks. Therefore to get extra allowance for

Deanship/Chairmanship is unjustified and irregular.

You are requested to justify the payment of allowance made or the recovery may be made from

the official concerned.

For further scrutiny, you are also requested to provide the subject allocation and timetables of alldepartments so that the additional work load could be verified. The observation may then be

reconsidered.


19/63

Para-16 Rehabilitation of old building below specification Rs - 26.262 million

.



improper expenditure or waste of public money or stores, even though the accounts may be inorder. It is thus not sufficient to see that sundry rules or orders have been observed but it is of




2010-2011, it was observed that Planning Commission (Project Wing) is its letter No. 24. (157)

PW/PD/07 (SS) dated December 22nd

2010 had communicated to that The rehabilitation of oldbuilding is not upto standard. The quality has not been maintained in the rehabilitation work of

residential quarters. Under rehabilitation of old buildings, the executing agency has utilized an

amount of Rs. 26.262 million against capital cost of Rs. 36.926 million which is 71% of capitalcost. The executing agency is completing rehabilitation of old buildings in parts; therefore,

rehabilitation of not a single building has been completed.

In this regard, you are requested to justify that why such a low quality work was executed ? and

why no penalty was imposed over the contractor ?

Audit suggest that a high level enquiry may be called to probe the matter and possiblecorruption.


20/63

Para-17 Improper execution of work due to violating specification.

Para-89 (d) (f) of CPW Department code Engineers and other subordinates are responsible that

the terms of contracts are strictly enforced, and that no act is done tendering to nullify or vitiate a

contract.


2010-2011, it was observed that during the execution of work of Sports and Allied Complex

the contractor had changed the specification of work by executing the work vide C-2 instead ofbrick masonry. Despite such a big change the estimates were neither revised nor the contractor

was instructed to observe the original specification.

Further, the payments were made to the contractor by measuring the work of brick masonry that

was never carried out.

Such an irregularity needs to be fully justified as why the contractor was allowed to change thespecification of work and how the payment was made over the fake measurement ?


21/63

Para-18 Non-Production of foreign scholarship record amounting to million of

rupees.

Section 14 (2) and (3) of the Auditor-Generals (Functions, Powers and Terms and Conditions ofService) Ordinance, 2001, states that:

(2) The officer incharge of any office or department shall afford all facilities and

provide record for audit inspection and comply with requests for information in as

complete a form as possible and with reasonable expedition.(3) Any person or authority hindering the auditorial functions of the Auditor-General

regarding inspection of accounts shall be subject to disciplinary action under

Efficiency and Discipline Rules.


2010-2011, the university authorities were asked to provide the record regarding the foreign

scholarships, which were awarded by the Higher Education Commission and University

Authorities for faculty development program since the establishment of HEC. The audit did

want to verify that those who were given scholarships and NOCs for HEC scholarships had

actually served 5 year service in the parent university as per their agreement.

But, the university authorities did not provide the requisite amount by saying that they did not

maintain the requisite record.

Audit is of the view that absence of such a record it not only a matter of concern but also a big

irregularity as the university authorities had failed to safeguard the investment made over thepersonals in terms of foreign scholarships.

You are requested to justify the non-production of record and it is requested that the required

record along with details may kindly be provided to the audit for necessary scrutiny.


22/63

Para-19 Non-Production of record regarding research amounting to Rs 18.99 million


(2) The officer incharge of any office or department shall afford all facilities andprovide record for audit inspection and comply with requests for information in as

complete a form as possible and with reasonable expedition.

(3) Any person or authority hindering the auditorial functions of the Auditor-Generalregarding inspection of accounts shall be subject to disciplinary action under



2010-2011, the university authorities were asked to provide the record regarding the expenditure

made over research, but the requisite record was not produced to the audit.

Due to not providing the underwritten record, the audit could not verify the expenditure made

over research. The audit had called the following record/document regarding the research.

1. List of research project going on along with the team members working over and topic ofresearch.

2. The copies of approved research proposals.3. Progress reports of ongoing research.4. Number of research papers published while working over these research projects.

Audit is of the view that not producing record regarding research clearly indicates that university

is only making expenditure over the pretext of research and in fact no such research is being

carried out by the university.

You are requested to justify the non-production of record and to negate to established view of the

audit team you are requested to provide the requisitioned record along with details to the audit

for necessary scrutiny.


23/63

Para-20 Non-adjustment of Imprest advances amounting to Rs. 1.6 million

According to Rule-669 of Central Treasury Rules, Volume-I, Advances granted under the

special orders of the competent authority to officers / officials for departmental or allied purposesmay be drawn on the responsibility and receipt of the officers for whom they are sanctioned

subject to adjustment by submission of detailed account supported by vouchers or by refund as

may be necessary.


it was observed that payment of Rs. 1.6 million was made to various departments on account of

imprest advances but the same were not adjusted. (Details provided in the annexure).

In this regard you are requested to justify the non-adjustment of imprest advances or the

adjustment may be made at the earliest and adjusted accounts along with supporting vouchers

may be produced to audit for necessary scrutiny.


24/63

Para-21 Defective execution of work of Construction of Compound Wall at Dokri

Campus

According to clause 17 of the Contract, if at any time before the payment to the contractor orrefund of security deposit, it is the duty of the Executive Engineer to ensure that the workexecuted if un-sound or improper and quality of work done were inferior or defective, if it

happened so, the contractor may be asked to rectify or remove the defects and reconstruct the

work so specified in the estimate Schedule B as a whole or part as the case may be.


2010-2011, it was observed that after the inspection of various works executed at Dokri Campus,

the Project Engineer had pointed out in his letter No. PD (SAU)/91 of 2011 Dated 26-01-2011that workmanship and quality of brick masonry item is below the specification and not upto the

mark/

In this regard, the management failed to watch the laid down procedures and the above lapses on

the part of the department indicate improper watch and systematic control over execution of

works.

The non-observance of the Govt. rules and procedures resulted in acceptance of below

specifications and defective work and rendered the entire expenditure as irregular.

You are requested to justify acceptance of defective work and non-imposition of penalty. Further

the penalty may be imposed and recovered from the contractor under intimation to audit. And

remedial measures may be adopted to avoid such lapses in future.


25/63

Para-22 Irregular payment of honorarium - Rs. 1.35 million

According to the Fundamental Rules, Honorarium is granted to those employees who

performed extra duties other than the routine work with proper justification.


2010-2011, it was observed that University had made an irregular payment of honorarium of Rs.

1.35 million to the university staff.

The following irregularities were noticed:

1. Honorarium could only be granted to those employees who performed extra duties otherthan routine work but no justification was available on record.

2. The amount was drawn through cheque but disbursement certificate of payments was notobtained.

3. Acknowledgement receipts were not obtained.4. Office orders regarding the allocation of work performed was not available.5. The order showing the honorarium agreed up was not available.In the above mentioned backdrops it is clear that an irregular payment had been made which

need to be recovered from the employees at the earliest under intimation to audit.


26/63

Para-23 Non-recovery of expended amount over scholarships of ph.d

According to Rule-88 of Sindh Financial Rules, Volume-I, Every public officer is expected to

exercise the same vigilance in respect of the expenditure incurred from public money as a personof ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.


2010-2011, it was observed that various ph.d scholarships were awarded under the determined

conditions but though the two Assistant Professors i.e Mr. Habib-ul-rehman Memon of and Mr

Muhammad Ali Ansari of Department of Agronomy who failed to complete their ph.d and

returned unsuccessful, the amount spent over was not recovered.

It is therefore requested that the amount spent over may kindly be recovered and the recovered

amount may kindly be get verified from the audit.


27/63

Para-24 Excess payment of house rent allowance amounting to Rs. 27.96 million

All employees not provided with government accommodation and posted at Karachi,

Hyderabad including Kotri and Jamshoro should be entitled to house rent allowance @ 45% ofthe minimum of basic pay scale. For all other places, this allowance will be allowed @ 30% as

per revised pay scale 1987 vide Finance Department No. FD(SR-IV)1/43/87 dated 17th

May,

1987.


2010-2011 it was observed that the university had given 45% house rent to the employees

instead of 30% which is contrary to rules of Sindh Government as provided above.

Due to allowing 45% house rent, the University has caused a loss of Rs. 27.96 million of the

resources which needs to be fully justified.

You are requested to justify such an irregularity and the amount may be recovered from theemployees at the earliest under intimation to audit.


28/63

Para-25 Non-imposition of penalty over the late start of library work amounting to

Rs. 1,490,321/-

As per clause II of the agreement, the time frame given for completion of the work is required to

be observed and in case of failure/delay, the penalty at the rate of 10% may be imposed on thetotal cost of the work.


was observed that university authorities had awarded work to the contractor for the extension of

library. In this regard, the following observations were made which needs full justification.

1. The work was schedule to be started from 05-06-2008 but it was started after 10 dayswithout any justified reason.

2. The time allowed for completion was 9 months but extensions were provided by theProject Director without sufficient reason.

3. The penalty was not imposed.

You are requested to justify these irregularities and the amount of penalty main kindly be

imposed and recovered from the contractor under intimation to audit.


29/63

Para-26 Irregular payment without obtaining tender amounting to 458,510/-

Para 89 (c ) of CPW Department code Tenders must be invited in the most open and public

manner possible, whether by advertisement in the press or by notice in English and the writtenlanguage of the district posted in public places, after the estimate has been approved by an

authority not lower than that empowered to accept the tender.

During the audit of the accounts of Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam for the FY 2009-10

and 2010-2011, it was observed that a payment was made to Mr. Riaz Ahmed Soomro, Assistant

Engineer for construction of compound wall (640 RFT) in front of Health Center at Tandojam

instead of inviting open tenders.

You are requested to justify such an irregularity that why such a direct payment was made for the

execution of work instead of inviting open tenders.


30/63

Para-27 Irregular payment of Ph.d allowance amounting to Rs. 2.76 million


only cases of clear irregularities but every matter which in its judgment appears to involveimproper expenditure or waste of public money or stores, even though the accounts may be in

order.


2010-2011, it was observed that university is allowing ph.d allowance to various staff members

without obtaining HEC verified ph.d degrees.

The degree record was called vide letter No: DGAS/Annual Audit 2010-2011/FAT-VI/CS-

V/2011/10 Dated 9-8-2011 but the record was not produced for audit scrutiny.

Audit holds the objection that allowing ph.d allowance without obtaining HEC verified ph.ddegrees is irregular.

You are requested to justify the ph.d allowance given to the employees without HEC verified

ph.d degrees.

For this matter, committee comprising senior members may be made and given the task to get

the degrees verified from HEC (Higher Education Commission) and the copies of the same may

be provided to the audit for verifying the authenticity of allowance drawn.

In absence of HEC verified degrees, the allowance will be treated as irregular payment.


31/63

Para-28 Non production of record regarding attendance of academic staff and subject

allocation.

Section 14 (2) and (3) of the Auditor-Generals (Functions, Powers and Terms and Conditions of

Service) Ordinance, 2001, states that:






2010-2011, the university authorities were asked to provide the record regarding the attendanceof lecturers and professors along with the subject allocation and timetable, but the requisite

record was not produced to the audit. In absence of this, the audit could not verify the payment of

salaries given to the lecturers and professor in the university.

Further, it was verbally communicated to the audit party that audit should not be concerned with

the subject allocation and attendance of lecturers and professors.

Audit holds the view that lectures and professors are paid for the services in terms of lectures

delivered and in absence of time table, subject allocation and regular attendance of lecturers and

professors in the class, it can be assumed that lecturers and professors are not regularly taking

classes and getting their salaries without providing the due services.

It is not only a matter of audit function to verify the presence of academic staff in the classes but

also a moral obligation to inspect and assure that future of students are not at stake and lecturers

and professors and providing their due services.

You are requested to justify the non-production of requite record and the requisite record may

kindly be produced to the audit to verity the authenticity of expenditure made over salaries of

academic staff.

Further the high level inquiry may be conducted to probe the matter that how the university is

functioning without maintaining the above mentioned record?


32/63

Para-29 Non-Production of record regarding Japanese Need Based Scholarship Rs.

13.57 million








2010-2011, the university authorities were asked to provide the record regarding the Japanese

Need Based Scholarships. But, the university authorities did not provide the requisite record.

You are requested to justify the non-production of record and it is requested that the required

record along with details may kindly be provided to the audit for necessary scrutiny.


33/63

Para-30 Bogus payment made over the purchase of material amounting Rs. 588,629/-


fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by government

through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held responsible for any lossarising from fraud and negligence on the part of any other government officer to the extent to


During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-2011, itwas observed that a payment was made over the purchase of material as provided in the annexed

statement.

The material purchased belongs to the work which is in the jurisdiction of Project Director, but

the expenditure was claimed by various persons and claims were satisfied by the university

authorities.

In this regard, you are requested to justify the bogus payment made over the payment ofmaterials associated with the repair, maintenance and construction.

In other case the recovery may be made from the people concerned under intimation to audit.


34/63

Para-31 Missing mango trees of horticulture garden amounting to Rs. 337,600/-


fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by governmentthrough fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held responsible for any loss

arising from fraud and negligence on the part of any other government officer to the extent to



2010-2011, it was observed that as per Lease of horticulture garden, fruit for the year 2007-08

the no of mango trees were 506, whereas as per details provided by the chairman horticulture the

no of existing trees is 265. It is pertinent to mention that during four years of span, only 30 dry

mango trees were auctioned.

By calculating the no of trees and the auctioned value, the audit has found the 211 mango trees

which has a value of Rs. 337,600/- had been found missing.

For this matter, you are requested to call a high level inquiry to probe into the matter and the loss

may be recovered from the person/official at fault.


35/63

Para-32 Un-authorized payment of conveyance allowance - Rs.45.271 million

Para-8 of the office Memorandum of Government of Sindh, Finance Department No. F.D (SR-

IV)-1(12) / 77 dated 13

th

May, 1977, states that all employees posted at Islamabad, Karachi,Lahore and Hyderabad/Kotri Jamshoro, not residing within their work premises, shall be allowed

conveyance allowance or motor cycle/car maintenance allowance.


it was observed that University is giving conveyance allowance to its employees though the

conveyance allowance is not claimable in the area where the University is situated.

By allowing conveyance allowance, the University had put an undue burden over the resources

and tried to create a difference between the allowance of regular government employees and the

university employee, as the conveyance allowance is not allowed to the government employees

in the same area.

You are requested to justify the unauthorized payment to the university employees despite the

fact that employees have been given residence in University Colony, pick and drop facility and

separate vehicles. In other case, the amount may be recovered from the employees under

intimation to audit.


36/63

Para-33 Non production of record of ZABAC Campus amounting to Rs.

285.44 million








2010-2011, the university authorities were asked to provide the record of ZABAC which is acampus situated at Dokri.

You are requested to justify the non-production of requite record and the requisite record may

kindly be produced to the audit to verity the authenticity of expenditure.


37/63

Para-34 Non-maintenance of consumption account of medicinesRs. 157,968/-

According to Rule-114 of Sindh Financial Rules, volume-I, states that, no materials should be

issued unless a written indent from the officer concerned is received. Similarly, consumption

account should be maintained properly to watch the utilization of material.


2010-2011, it was observed that expenditure was made over the purchase of medicines, as

provided in the annexure, but consumption account was not maintained/produced to the audit.

You are requested to justify the non-maintenance of consumption account or not producing therecord to the audit.


38/63

Para-35 Non-adjustment of advances amounting to Rs. 16.5 million




may be necessary.


it was observed that payment of Rs. 16.5 million was made to the various employees in terms of

advances but the same were not adjusted. (Details provided in the annexure).

The following observations were also made:-

1. The record regarding the expenditure made over the advances was not produced.2. The university had provided huge amount of advances to the individuals without any

justification.

3. Request made by the individuals for advances was not available.4. Accountals were not produced.5. Estimates for purchases made were not available.6. The adjustments were not made.

In this regard you are requested to justify the non-adjustment of advances or the adjustment may

be made at the earliest and adjusted accounts along with supporting vouchers may be produced

to audit for necessary scrutiny.

In other case the recovery may be made from the official who had received such advances.


39/63

Para-36 Non-accountal of various material amounting Rs. 745,800/-

Rule-113 and 114 of Sindh Financial Rules, volume-I, state that All materials received should

be examined, counted, measured or weighed, as the case may be, when delivery is taken and

when materials are issued from stock the incharge of the store should see that proper indent hasbeen made by authorized person and record under his dated initial the description and quantity of

material issued.


2010-2011, the university authorities had made expenditure over the purchase of various

materials but the same was not accounted as provided in the annexure.

You are requested to justify the non-accountal of items purchased and the relevant record may

kindly be produced to the audit to verify the authenticity of expenditure made.


40/63

Para-37 Non-adjustment of TA/DA advances amounting to Rs. 1.412 million




may be necessary.


it was observed that payment of Rs. 1.412 million was made to the employees in terms of

TA/DA advances but the same were not adjusted. (Details provided in the annexure).

In this regard you are requested to justify the non-adjustment of TA/DA advances or the

adjustment may be made at the earliest and adjusted accounts along with supporting vouchers

may be produced to audit for necessary scrutiny.


41/63

Para-38 Un-verified sale of trees, sugar can, animals and miscellaneous products due

to non-production of record - Rs.1.22 million




provide record for audit inspection and comply with requests for information in ascomplete a form as possible and with reasonable expedition.

(3) Any person or authority hindering the auditorial functions of the Auditor-General




2010-2011, the record pertaining to sale of trees, sugar can, animals and miscellaneous products

was not produced to audit, due to which the audit could not verify the income realized by the

University. If the record would have been provided, the audit could have verified the following

checks.

1. Number of animals, trees auctioned.2. Analysis of rates used for auction.3. The total areas of crop cultivation.4. Total yield for the year.5. Market price for the product auctioned.6. Agreement with the tenderer.7. Tenders for auction.8. Bidding prices of bidders.9. Timely payments. etc

In this regard you are requested to justify the non-production of relevant record or the record

may be produced to the audit for verification and necessary scrutiny of above mentioned checks.


42/63

Para-39 Non accountal of Books amounting to Rs. 939,229/-

According to Para-148 of General Financial Rules, Volume-I, All materials received should beexamined, counted, measured or weighed as the case may be, when delivery is taken and they

should be taken in charge by a responsible government officer who should see that the quantitiesare correct and their quality good and record a certificate to that effect. The officer receiving the

stores should also be required to give a certificate that he has actually received the materials and

recorded them in the appropriate stock register.


it was observed that an expenditure of Rs. 939,229/- was made over the purchase of books from

various vendors, but the same were not accounted in the relevant stock register.

You are requested to justify the non-accountal of books or relevant record may be produced to

audit for necessary scrutiny and verification.


43/63

Para-40 Not maintenance of service books

According to S.R. 197, A service book in such form as the Auditor- General may prescribe

must be maintained for every nongazetted Government servant holding a-substantive post on a

permanent establishment or officiating in a post or holding a temporary post with the following

exceptions. -a) Government servants the particulars of whose service are recorded in a history of servicesor ft service register maintained by an audit officer.

b) Government servants officiating in posts or holding temporary posts, who are recruitedfor purely temporary or officiating vacancies for short periods 1[not exceeding one year.]

c) Policemen of rank not higher than that of head constable.

d) Postmen and village postmen (excluding head postmen, overseer postmen, and sorting or

reader postmen), and mail guards in the Railway Mail Service and linemen, or line riders in the

Telegraph Engineering Branch recruited after the 15th November, 1933.

e) Permanent subordinate non-pensionable servants in state. rail ways, for whom a special formof record has been prescribed.

f) Class IV servants of all sorts.

Contrary to the above, during the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the

FY 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, it was observed that university is not maintaining service books.

In this regard, you are requested to justify the non-maintenance of service books or the service

books if maintained may kindly be produced to the audit for necessary scrutiny.


44/63

Para-41 Non-maintenance of Leave Account

According to F. R. 76. A leave account shall be maintained for each Government servant in

terms of leave on average pay.

SECRETARY OF STATE'S ORDERA separate account should be kept of the leave earned by a Government servant serving under aGovernment and then transferred to another Government and all leave taken after the date of

transfer should be debited to this account so long as the balance under it is not exhausted, and the

allowances drawn during all leave, which is so debited, should be charged to that Government.

[S. of S's. telegram No. 59-C.S.R., dated the 12th January, 1921, received with G.I., F.D.

No. 970-C.S.R., dated the 22nd September, 1921.]


2010-2011, it was observed that university is not maintaining leave account in complete

contravention of above mentioned rule.

Due to not maintaining leave account the university authorities had provided a free hand to the

employees to make leaves without being accounted.

You are requested to justify the non-maintenance of leave account to the audit.


45/63

Para-42 Non-Production of Professional Tax Challans amounting to Rs. 87,000/-








2010-2011, it was observed that the University had deducted professional tax of Rs. 87,000/ but

the proof of their deposit in terms of original treasury challans was not produced to the audit.

Due to this the audit could not verify the occurrence of transaction event and it could not be

ascertained that whether the deducted Profession tax amount has been deposited properly or not.

You are requested to justify the non-production of Professional tax challans to the audit and the

original challans may be produced to the audit for verification and necessary scrutiny.


46/63

Para-43 Non-imposition of penalty over the late start and defective work of Animal

Genetics Conservation Center amounting to Rs. 960,152/-

As per clause II of the agreement, the time frame given for completion of the work is required to

be observed and in case of failure/delay, the penalty at the rate of 10% may be imposed on thetotal cost of the work.


was observed that university authorities had awarded work to the contractor for the construction

of animal genetics conservation center. In this regard, the following observations were made

which needs full justification.

1. The work was schedule to be started from 19-11-2009 but till 1-4-2010 the work was notstarted as proclaimed by the Component Manger in his letter to the Director Planning and

Development in letter No. DAR/119/of 2010 dated 1-4-2010.

2. PC-1 was not produced to the audit.3. The rate analysis of non-scheduled items amounting to Rs. 913,025/- was not produced.4. The work was defective as there was not drainage system designed for the building.5. The penalty was not imposed.

You are requested to justify these irregularities and the amount of penalty main kindly be

imposed and recovered from the contractor under intimation to audit.


47/63

Para-44 Irregular execution of work without obtaining approved rate analysis Rs

7.34 million

According to Article 84 of Audit code, it is an essential function of the Audit to bring to light notonly cases of clear irregularities but every matter which in its judgment appears to involve






2010-2011, it was observed that the university authorities had made payments for the

construction of Green House but rate analysis was not prepared/produced to the audit. In absence

of which, the payment made is irregular and unjustified.

You are kindly requested to justify such an irregularity.


48/63

Para-45 Non-imposition of penalty and acceptance of defective work

amounting to Rs. 152590/-

According to clause 17 of the Contract, if at any time before the payment to the contractor or

refund of security deposit, it is the duty of the Executive Engineer to ensure that the work

executed if un-sound or improper and quality of work done were inferior or defective, if ithappened so, the contractor may be asked to rectify or remove the defects and reconstruct the

work so specified in the estimate Schedule B as a whole or part as the case may be.


2010-2011, it was observed that a work was awarded to the contractor for the construction of

Seed Production and Development Center at Latif Farm but despite defective execution of work

the penalty was not imposed over the contractor and below specification/defective work wasaccepted.

In this regard, the management failed to watch the laid down procedures and the above lapses on

the part of the department indicate improper watch and systematic control over execution ofworks.

The non-observance of the Govt. rules and procedures resulted in acceptance of below

specifications and defective work and rendered the entire expenditure as irregular.

You are requested to justify acceptance of defective work and non-imposition of penalty. Further

the penalty may be imposed and recovered from the contractor under intimation to audit. And

remedial measures may be adopted to avoid such lapses in future.


49/63

Para-46 Non-accountal of fertilizers amounting Rs. 1,626,395/-

Rule-113 and 114 of Sindh Financial Rules, volume-I, state that All materials received should

be examined, counted, measured or weighed, as the case may be, when delivery is taken and

when materials are issued from stock the incharge of the store should see that proper indent hasbeen made by authorized person and record under his dated initial the description and quantity of

material issued.


2010-2011, it was observed that the university authorities had made expenditure over the

purchase of fertilizers but the same was not accounted.

You are requested to justify the non-accountal of fertilizers and the relevant record may kindly

be produced to the audit to verify the authenticity of expenditure made.


50/63

Para-47 Non-Production of Income Tax Challans amounting to Rs. 8.984 million








2010-2011, it was observed that the University had deducted an income tax of Rs. 8.984 million

but the proof of their deposit in terms of original treasury challans was not produced to the audit.

Due to this the audit could not verify the occurrence of transaction event and it could not be

ascertained that whether the deducted income tax amount has been deposited properly or not.

You are requested to justify the non-production of income tax challans to the audit and the

original challans may be produced to the audit for verification and necessary scrutiny.


51/63

Para-48 Non-maintenance of consumption account of seedRs 33,160/-





2010-2011, it was observed that expenditure was made over the purchase of seed but

consumption account was not maintained/produced to the audit.

Further the following record pertaining to the farm management was also not produced, i.e

1. Statement showing the total area and cultivated area.2. Name of crop cultivated.3. Annual yield/produce.4. Annual auction.5. Utilization of seed per acre.

You are requested to justify the non-maintenance of consumption account and not producing the

record to the audit. Further, the relevant record may kindly be produced to the audit for necessary

scrutiny.


52/63

Para-49 Non-maintenance of consumption account of animal feedRs 293,590/-





2010-2011, it was observed that expenditure was made over the purchase of animal feed but

consumption account was not maintained/produced to the audit.

Further it was also observed the purchase slips on which the feed was purchased was

incongruous with the dates mentioned thereon. This clearly shows the purchase was made over

fake cash memos, which need to be inquired.

You are requested to justify the non-maintenance of consumption account or not producing the

record to the audit. Further, an inquiry may be made to probe the matter of fake invoices/cash

memos.


53/63

Para-50 Non-adjustment of advances amounting to Rs. 1,974,802/-

According to Rule 668 of Treasury Rules Vol-I advances granted under the special orders of the

competent authority for Departmental or allied purposes, may be allowed on the responsibility of

the officers by home they are sanctioned subject to the adjustment/refund.

During the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and2010-2011, it was observed that various advances were given, as provided in the annexure but

neither the adjustment was sought nor the amount was recovered from the officials concerned.

You are requested to justify the non-adjustment of advances and the amount which had been

retained by the personals unjustifiably may kindly be recovered under intimation to audit.


54/63

Para-51 Non-maintenance of record regarding the sale of animals

According to Rule-26 of GFR, It is the duty of Controlling Officer to see that all sums due to

Government are regularly and promptly assessed, realized and deposited in public account


it was observed that no of animals were produced, as provided in the annexure, but the record

regarding their auction/sale was not produced to the audit. Due to which, the audit could not

verify the authenticity of sale of animals and could not ascertain that whether the revenue was

realized or not.

You are requested to justify the non-maintenance/production of record regarding the sale of

animals and the relevant record may kindly be produced to the audit for necessary scrutiny.


55/63

Para-52 Cash payment instead of cross cheques amounting Rs. 558,938/-

According to Financial Rules, All paymen ts, which Government servants

authoriz ed by draw cheques have to make, should as far possible be made by cheques


2010-2011, it was observed that various payments were made in cash instead of cross cheuqes as

provided in the annexure. In doing so, the university authorities had compromised the internalcontrol and possible occurrence of fraud.

You are requested to justify such an irregularity.


56/63

Para-53 Physical Verification of Livestock not conducted

According to Rule-116 of Sindh Financial Rules, Volume-I, it is the responsibility of Drawing

and Disbursing Officer (Head Office) to carry out the annual physical verification of stores every

financial year and the results thereof communicated to the Controlling Authority with stocktaking certificate.

Contrary to the above rule, during the course of annual audit of the Sindh Agriculture UniversityTandojam for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-2011, it was observed that physical verification of

livestock available at the farms was neither carried out nor any certificate was found recorded.

Due to not conducting physical verification it could not be ascertained that mentioned live stock

is available physically or not.

It is requested that verification may be carried out and the certificate thus recorded may be

produced to the audit.


57/63

Para-54 Annual Physical Verification of Stock and Stores not conducted

According to Rule-116 of Sindh Financial Rules, Volume-I, it is the responsibility of Drawing

and Disbursing Officer (Head Office) to carry out the annual physical verification of stores every

financial year and the results thereof communicated to the Controlling Authority with stock

taking certificate.

Contrary to the above rule, during the course of annual audit of the Sindh Agriculture University

Tandojam for the FY 2009-10 and 2010-2011, it was observed that annual physical verificationof stock & Stores was neither carried out nor any certificate was found recorded in the stock

register.

The University used to purchase machinery and equipment of millions of rupees every year, it is

imperative to get the items physically verified annually so that it could be ascertained that

machinery and equipment are available in good physical and working condition.

It is requested that annual verification may be carried out annually and the certificate thusrecorded may be produced to the audit.


58/63

Para-55 Internal audit not conducted

According to GFR Volume-I every controlling officer is responsible to apply systematic internal

checks to prevent and detect error and irregularities in the financial proceedings of its

subordinate officers and to guard against waste and loss of public money and store.

During the course of the annual audit of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam for the FY

2009-10 and 2010-2011, it was observed that internal audit was not conducted which is violation

of above codal rule.

Due to non-observance of above instructions the chances of misuse of money cannot be ruled

out.

It is requested that the omission may please be justified under intimation to audit and the internal

audit may be conducted with a report which may be shown to the audit.


59/63

Para-56 Unjustified Expenditure on Hajj from University Funds

The Honorable Supreme Court while hearing the case of Hajj Corruption dated 9th

April 2011

upheld that Prime facie we can hold that no one is authorized to utilize government fundswithout any legal justification and, therefore, those responsible for the same in the interior

ministry as well as religious affairs ministry are liable for criminal action.


it was observed that University had granted permission to Mr. Ghulam Shabir Mastoi, Office

Assistant to meet Hajj expenses from University Funds without any valid justification.

You are requested to justify such an expenditure or the recovery may be made from the

concerned person under intimation to audit.


60/63

Para-57 Wasteful expenditure over security personals








2010-2011, it was observed that on dated 24-02-2007, the around 1500 mobs with guns attacked

the campus and made damages to vehicles and glass. The matter was reported by the Transport

Officer in his letter dated 05-03-2007 in which is told that he made his utmost efforts to inform

Police, Campus Police, District Management and Director Campus but no one responded.

In this backdrop, it is questionable that why university is making huge expenditure over security

personals though they are not on the side while encountering the difficult situation of law and

order.

Audit holds the opinion that such a matter need to be fully investigated and loss may be

recovered from the salaries of security personals.


61/63

Para-58 Missing animals


fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by governmentthrough fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held responsible for any loss

arising from fraud and negligence on the part of any other government officer to the extent to



2010-2011, it was observed that two animals as provided in the annexed statement were found

missing. Neither the auction was made nor was the death of these animals reported.

In this regard, you are requested to probe the matter or the recovery may be made from the

person at fault.


62/63

Para-59 Unjustified expenditure over labour charges amounting to Rs. 133,986/-

According to Rule-88 of Sindh Financial Rules, Volume-I, Every public officer is expected to

exercise the same vigilance in respect of the expenditure incurred from public money as a person

of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.


was observed that an expenditure of Rs. 133,986 was made over the labour charges.

Audit holds the objection that a huge number of work force is available with the University

which is getting its pay then why the available labour was not utilized and instead, expenditure

was made over the labor charges without having proper justification.

You are requested to clarify this matter or the responsibility may be fixed over the person at

fault.


63/63

Para-60 Non accountal of purchased items amounting to Rs. 430,710/-

According to Para-148 of General Financial Rules, Volume-I, All materials received should be

examined, counted, measured or weighed as the case may be, when delivery is taken and they

should be taken in charge by a responsible government officer who should see that the quantitiesare correct and their quality good and record a certificate to that effect. The officer receiving the

stores should also be required to give a certificate that he has actually received the materials and

recorded them in the appropriate stock register.


2010-2011, it was observed that an expenditure of Rs. 430,710/- was made over the purchase of

various items as provided in the annexure, but the same were not accounted in the relevant

registers.

You are requested to justify the non-accountal of purchased items or the relevant record may be

produced to audit for necessary scrutiny and verification.

PART-II (OTHER IRREGULARITIES)

--------------------------NIL--------------------------

audit report sindh agriculture university tandojam, sindh

Documents