Mail News Service
Imphal, July 16: As per contract agreement for supply of school uniforms the contractor was to be paid only after uniforms supplied had been inspected and certified. Further, contractor’s security deposit of Rs 47.59 lakh was to be refunded only after receiving all uniforms as per the supply order.
Scrutiny of SMA records revealed that the firm was paid full value of the contract (Rs 9.52 crore) in March 2011. The contractor’s security deposit was also refunded in March 2011, ostensibly on the supplier giving commitment that the full quantity of stitched school uniforms will be delivered within 31 March 2011. Copy of written commitment from the supplier was however not available in the file. However, as on date of audit (July 2011), school uniform sets worth Rs 1.14 crore were yet to be delivered. Thus, the contractor was given undue benefit through premature payments at the expense of the scheme which also resulted in loss of interest income on Rs 1.62 crore. Further, as the full amount was already paid and SD was also refunded, the SMA had no scope of safeguarding the interest of the department if the contractor were to supply defective/substandard material.
The SMA (December 2011) while contesting that there was no loss of interest stated that cheques in respect of supply of school uniforms were prepared in March 2011for covering the committed liabilities. Final payment was made to the contractor in October 2011 after the goods were received and verified. The reply is not acceptable because all cheques drawn against the contract were encashed by June 22, 2011 as seen from the SMA’s bank account
Further, as per contract agreement for supply of play/game material contractor’s security deposit was to be released only after expiry of the warranty period, which extends for three months after delivery. However, scrutiny of records at the SMA revealed that the security deposit amounting to Rs 5.24 lakh was refunded (March 2011) within a few days from the date of delivery though it was not due till June 2011. Thus, contactor was given undue benefit leaving the SMA without any scope for rectification of defects that could arise later on.
The SMA (Decr 2011) stated that security deposit in respect of play/game materials was refunded in March 2011 to avoid lapse of fund after an inquiry team examined and certified that the materials were as per specifications. The reply is not acceptable as the SMA had gone against the provision of the agreement. Moreover, there was no way the inquiry team could have foreseen that no defect would occur during the warranty period.
School uniforms & Play/game material: Scrutiny of delivery challans and stock register revealed that play/game materials from Haryana and school uniforms from Siliguri were received in Manipur on the same day they were dispatched from these distant places. Thus, supply of play/game materials and school uniforms from these distant places was doubtful, raising the possibility that the materials was obtained locally to the advantage/benefit of the
The SMA (Dec 2011) claimed that school uniforms and play/game materials were delivered in 7 to 15 days after their dispatch. This reply is not acceptable as documents produced during the course of audit clearly revealed that dates of dispatch and receipts were same.
Exercise books: Test-check of SMA records revealed that 1,76,911 exercise books procured (March and December 2010) for RS 36.60 lakh were not taken into the stock register. These were targeted for CWSNs and SC/ST children. However, scrutiny of stock register and incentive issue register revealed that 78,311 exercise books were issued as on date of audit (June 2011). This left 98,600 exercise books worth Rs 20.71 lakh (@ Rs 20.5) unaccounted. Further scrutiny of records of DPO, Ukhrul revealed that 12,000 exercise books worth Rs 2 lakh were procured (March 2011) for girls education programme. Out of these, 2,379 exercise books were distributed which left a stock balance of 9,621, as on date of audit (September 2011). However only 1,600 exercise books were found on physical verification. This left 8,021 exercise books valued at Rs 1.34 lakh unaccounted. Thus, misappropriation of exercise book worth Rs 22.05 lakh due to unaccounted stock cannot be ruled out. Further, this also deprived the intended beneficiaries of their incentive to attend school.
School bags: The SMA placed supply order for 25,374 school bags worth Rs 50.75 lakh (March 2010) with Ken Bag Industries, Imphal for free distribution under SC/ST, girls education and urban deprived children. Though the supplier was paid the full amount (March 2010), material was not taken into stock register till the date of audit (June 2011) and hence remained unaccounted thereby depriving the beneficiaries from their intended use.
Non-accountal of material worth Rs 72.80 lakh for over seven months is a serious issue and indicative of lack of proper internal controls in the SMA. Such practice also leaves ample scope for misappropriation of funds and calls for investigation.
The SMA (December 2011) submitted a copy of the stock register stating that it could not be located during audit due to renovation of the State Project Office. Scrutiny of the record submitted revealed that the number of exercise books issued (1,42,629) was more than number received (1,31,529). Similarly, against 96,522 school bags procured from Ken Bags and MS Sujata Sarkar, the number issued was 1,06,958. There was no stock balance brought forward r, veracity of the document could not be vouched in audit.
Read more / Original news source: http://manipur-mail.com/undue-benefit-to-the-contractor-in-education-department-cag/
