Finance and accounts officer (F&AO) of any organization is a very responsible post and suppose to work a guide of whole administration based on General Finance Rule, 2005 (GFR2005) of Govt. of India. However in the case of NIPER F&AO failed to perform his duties lied to CPIO (RTI) and other statutory committees causing huge loss to exchequer money, and causing initiation of litigation.
Following cases are clear depiction of his misdeeds.
Case-1
FAO lied to CPIO NIPER while providing Replay of RTI
"FAO has provided further input on the application of Dr. Nilanjan Roy. Information." FAO in his reply to CPIO stated as under:
1. The policy of NlPER with regard to the criteria or principle or policy through which it is decided to use the money received under the budget head "Plan-Money" in 1lthfive year plan for purpose like consultancy work?
No Money has been used for consultancy purpose out of the 11lh five year plan money.
2. Scheme wise and faculty wise break-up of total amount of plan money utilizes by the faculty members of NIPER for consultancy work for the entire plan period till date?
No Money has been used for consultancy purpose out of the 1 l t h five year plan money.
The same FAO replied to Appellate authority Dr. Harmeet Singh IRS
A report from Finance and Account Officer, NIPER, S.A.S. Nagar on the above referred cases were sought and report is reproduced as under:
The order for the purchase of N Formyl clarithromycin/l g was placed to M/s Ind Swift Laboratories out the scheme C1510 (Impurity Profiling Facility) on indent of Dr. Saranjit Singh. This material belongs to AC/RC project undertaken by Dr. Saranjit Singh for USP, USA. The material for Rs. 804871.00 was purchased with the approval dated 10.09.2009 of Competent Authority from scheme C1510 on the condition that the same will be recouped from project AC-10-14, AC-10-15, Rc10-12 & RC10-13
No money was recouped, but advisory consultancy claim was submitted, So way F&AO lied to CPIO? Was he a beneficiary?
Case-2
F&AO claimed Money from claimed arrear money from DST in the name of 10 scientist/SRF; did not pay all the people, used the money for some other unknown purpose (pocket?), submitted the utilization certificate indicating that the money is used for the purpose it was given by DST. Advocate of one of the scientist served legal notice to officiating director, PI of the project and Secretary DST demanding the arrears of Rs. 2,68,200 along with interest @ 12% from Aug 2009.
So why F&AO deprived the scientists? Was he a beneficiary?
Case-3
Following cases are clear depiction of his misdeeds.
Case-1
FAO lied to CPIO NIPER while providing Replay of RTI
"FAO has provided further input on the application of Dr. Nilanjan Roy. Information." FAO in his reply to CPIO stated as under:
1. The policy of NlPER with regard to the criteria or principle or policy through which it is decided to use the money received under the budget head "Plan-Money" in 1lthfive year plan for purpose like consultancy work?
No Money has been used for consultancy purpose out of the 11lh five year plan money.
2. Scheme wise and faculty wise break-up of total amount of plan money utilizes by the faculty members of NIPER for consultancy work for the entire plan period till date?
No Money has been used for consultancy purpose out of the 1 l t h five year plan money.
The same FAO replied to Appellate authority Dr. Harmeet Singh IRS
A report from Finance and Account Officer, NIPER, S.A.S. Nagar on the above referred cases were sought and report is reproduced as under:
The order for the purchase of N Formyl clarithromycin/l g was placed to M/s Ind Swift Laboratories out the scheme C1510 (Impurity Profiling Facility) on indent of Dr. Saranjit Singh. This material belongs to AC/RC project undertaken by Dr. Saranjit Singh for USP, USA. The material for Rs. 804871.00 was purchased with the approval dated 10.09.2009 of Competent Authority from scheme C1510 on the condition that the same will be recouped from project AC-10-14, AC-10-15, Rc10-12 & RC10-13
No money was recouped, but advisory consultancy claim was submitted, So way F&AO lied to CPIO? Was he a beneficiary?
Case-2
F&AO claimed Money from claimed arrear money from DST in the name of 10 scientist/SRF; did not pay all the people, used the money for some other unknown purpose (pocket?), submitted the utilization certificate indicating that the money is used for the purpose it was given by DST. Advocate of one of the scientist served legal notice to officiating director, PI of the project and Secretary DST demanding the arrears of Rs. 2,68,200 along with interest @ 12% from Aug 2009.
So why F&AO deprived the scientists? Was he a beneficiary?
Case-3
In the financial year 2010-11 Department of Pharmaceutical released Plan money of Five year plan as per NIPER demand. Officiating director and F&AO misappropriated the funds received by them and have also cheated the staff members to whom they have paid lesser grant money by convening with each other. Actual money released from ministry for planned schemes and actual disbursement has a huge difference and figure [resented finance committee is also wrong, moreover the actual expenditure from compass is not also submitted to finance committee.
So way F&AO why allowed to siphon off 89 lakhs? Was he a beneficiary?
Case-4
The Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India sanctioned first installment of 250.00 lakh as financial assistance to the project “Facility for Toxicity Screening on nano Particle used for Drug ……Its mechanism of action” for purchase of Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). Quotation for the same was much higher. Institute took up the case with GOi for release of additional grant of 1.92 crore. GOI sanctioned 92.13 lakh Rest of the cost of the equipment approx 1 crore was met by NIPER from its own sources. Equipment was purchased from M/s EFI Company Europe through their agent M/s Analytical equipment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, only and only one party responded to NIPER tender notice (Custom made specification against the Competition Commission of India Rule?)
Para 4 Irregular purchase of imported equipment valuing Rs. 432.98 lakh
In this regard following observation were made by CAG,
1. Why the purchase procedure mentioned under General Finance Rules, 2005 e.g. regarding inviting global tender was not followed in purchase of imported equipments in all the cases
2. Reason for delay in installation may be apprised to audit.
3. Why the NIPER admitted to fund the purchase of equipment from its own sources and detailed of sources from which the equipment was funded, may be furnished to audit
4. What benefits the institute has envisaged from the TEM laboratory.
In response: NIPER kept mum about point no 1, 2 & 3 and in response to point no 4 wrote “the equipment is installed recently, therefore it is too early to assess its utility for the purpose other then teaching and research”
CAG: the reply is general one, Para stands
So From where F&AO arranged 1 crore and why? Was he a beneficiary of irregular purchase?
CASE-1
CASE-2
CASE-3
No comments:
Post a Comment