The Auditor-General of Pakistan (AG) is the prime monitor of the country for ensuring public accountability and fiscal transparency in government operations. However, the top auditor has turned a blind eye to financial irregularities committed by his own peers and allowed them to retire and go home without recovery of huge amounts mentioned even in successive yearly audit reports.
Documents available with Pakistan Today reveal that the AG Office has given clean chit to some of his “blue-eyed” persons who had, while serving in the Benazir Income Support Program (BISP), committed serious financial irregularities, bagging millions of rupees illegally in the form of House Rent Allowance.
During the audit of BISP by auditors belonging to the Auditor General’s department, massive irregularities were reported in the audit reports for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. These audit observations not only include irregularly extending personal benefits to the employees of BISP, but also to various firms, some of which are now being investigated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
A number of audit observations indicated the active connivance of the officers on deputation from the Auditor General’s department. The audit para 2.4.2 of the Audit Report 2012-13 contains the names of nine such officers who irregularly obtained financial benefits amounting to Rs 3.734 million.
The audit observations state that the nine deputationists paid to themselves an amount of Rs 3.734 million on the account of House Rent Allowance (HRA) @ 60% during FY 2010-12, despite living in government allotted accommodation. The House Rent Allowance was not deposited into the government treasury in violation of Rule 15(4)(c) of Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The auditors recommended that the BISP management should recover the amount paid irregularly and deposit it into the government treasury.
According to Rule 15(4)(c) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, an allottee who is transferred to an autonomous organisation at the same station may retain the government accommodation till such time as that organisation provides him alternate accommodation or for a period of five years, whichever is earlier. The total monthly House Rent Allowance payable to the allottee or his rental ceiling, whichever is more, will be payable into government treasury. The Standard Rent payable prior to 2002 was done away with, being too meagre.
The recent example of nepotism and favoritism is the sanctioning of pension payment to Jamal Abdul Nasir Usmani, presently Deputy Auditor General (Federal Audit Operations), who will retire from service on November 9, 2016 although a total amount of Rs 1.165 million was due from him to the exchequer for the period he served in BISP.
According to the Audit Reports for 2012-13 and 2013-14 pertaining to Federal Audit, Usmani owed to the government an amount of Rs 546,000 for the period up to 30.06.2012, and an amount of Rs 619,000 from July 2012 to June 2013.
However, Usmani deposited only Rs 573,280 in the government treasury on October 7, 2016 as “Standard Rent” for the period 10.08.2011 to 12.08.2013 although Standard Rent was abolished by the government in 2002, and replaced with the Rental Ceiling or House Rent Allowance, whichever is more.
It is indeed an irony that it is the DAG (FAO) who represents the AG before the Public Accounts Committee, where the government auditors leave no stone unturned for recovery of illegally withdrawn government money from all and sundry.
As per procedure, the pension cases are first processed by the Deputy Auditor General (Administration & Coordination) after receipt of Clearance Certificate from the Deputy Auditor General (Inspection, Regulations, Vigilance & Monitoring of Training) – IRV&MT. Although the AGP has introduced a whistleblowing toll-free number 0800-22999 in the Vigilance Section of the IRV& MT Wing of his office since September 30, 2016, the DAG (IRV&MT) did not ensure full recovery and issued Clearance Certificate.
The Director General Audit (Federal Government) who had raised the audit objections in his Audit Reports also did not seek recovery of the full amount when the pension case of Jamal Abdul Nasir Usmani was sent to him for audit scrutiny. Earlier, the same office had also cleared the pension case of Ehsanullah Cheema, former Deputy Director, BISP without seeking recovery of illegally withdrawn House Rent Allowance.
Despite clear evidence of irregular payment in the Audit Report 2012-13, Ehsanullah Cheema, the then Deputy Director, BISP was allowed to retire from service on 17.01.2016 without recovering an amount of Rs 990,000/- overpaid to him up to June 2012 and Rs. 534,000/- from July 2012 to June 2013 reported in Audit Report 2013-14.
DG AUDIT CONFIRMS OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS
When contacted for comments by Pakistan Today, Ajmal Gondal, Director-General (DG) Audit (Federal Government) conceded that Usmani had not deposited the actual amount payable and rather had preferred to submit Standard Rent. Asked whether it was legal under rules to pay Standard Rent which had actually been abolished and replaced with House Rent Allowance or rental ceiling in 2002, the DG Audit confirmed the same.
“We have noted it down and we have not settled the audit para. This (irregularity) would be presented to the Public Accounts Committee,” he said.
Asked why his pension papers were cleared and approved without recommending deduction of the full amount, Gondal said that he was not the right person to answer the question.
He said that according to his department’s record, Usmani needed to pay Rs. 612,000 but could not explain why the audit reports for 2012-13 and 2013-14 collectively amounted to Rs. 1,165,000.
About clean chit given to Cheema, the DG Audit confirmed that Cheema had also not deposited the requisite amount but his pension case was also cleared in defiance of the rules.
“We have also written letters to Cheema Sahib. We are pursuing and the matter would also be submitted in the PAC,” he concluded.
When Pakistan Today tried to contact Dr Waheed Ahmed, DAG (A&C), for comments, his personal assistant assured that this correspondent would get a response. However, the officer preferred not to respond despite repeated attempts.
