1

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT
SADAR PAHARGANJ ZONE

Mpl. Primary School Bldg.,

Ram Nagar, Arakashan Rd.
Pahar Ganj, N. Delhi-5

No.F.______/IAD/SPZ/2011/______
Dated_____________

Subject: Physical verification & test audit on account of

records of office of Exec. Engineer, Div. XVIII,
Kashmiri Gate, for the period 01.09.2010 onwards.

Please find enclosed the test check audit report on account of

records of office of Ex.Engineer, Div. XVIII, Kashmiri Gate, for the
period 01.09.2010 onwards. Replies/comments may be sent to the
office of the undersigned within a period of the two weeks of the
receipts.

Internal Audit
Officer

ZAP/S.P.Zone

The Ex. Engg.-Div. XVIII

S.P.Zone

Copy to:-
1. Supdt.Engineer (project)/S.P.Zone for kind information
and ensuring expeditious reply with his comments.
2. D.C.A.(I.A.D.) for kind information .
3. Office copy

Internal Audit Officer

ZAP/S.P.Zone

1
 2

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT
SADAR PAHAR GANJ ZONE, DELHI

No.F_______/IAD/ZAP/SPZ/2011/_____
Dated_______

Subject: Physical verification & test audit on account of

records of office of Exec. Engineer, Div. XVIII, Kashmiri
Gate, for the period 01.09.2010 to 06/01/2012.

INTRODUCTION:

As per approved programme the physical verification and test

check audit on account of office of Ex. Engineer, Div. XVIII, Kashmiri
Gate, for the period 01.09.2010 onwards was conducted by the
Zonal Audit Party, S.P.Zone, during the period 06.01.2012 to
20.01.2012. The Audit Party consisting of the following staff,
working under the control and supervision of Sh. S.K.Sachdeva,
Internal Audit Officer, S.P.Zone, conducted the audit of the said
office.

1. Sh. Nand Kishore Singh Accountant

2 Sh. Subhas Chand Mishra Acctt. Asstt.
3. Sh. Praveen Gangwal LDC

Sh.S.L.Bairwa held the post of Ex. Engineer at the time of Audit.

PART-I (Previous Audit)

The following Audit Inspections Reports issued from time to

time are still pending for final settlement for want of replies from the
Department:

1. F/17/IAD/DAP-III/94/290 Dated 26/06/1998

2. F/IAD/DAP-III/2001/393 Dated 06/11/2001
3. F/IAD/DAP-III/2005/520 Dated 31/10/2005
4. F-1367/IAD//SPZ/2009/345 Dated 14.05.2009
5. 1410/IAD/SPZ/2010/480 Dated 10.05.2010
6. 1434/IAD/SPZ/2011/595 Dated 30.09.2011

It is requested that the earnest efforts may be made at your

personal level to expedite replies to these long outstanding reports.
It is intimated that the non furnishing of the replies in time defeats
the very purpose of the audit and in passage of time, it becomes
quite to difficult to pin point the responsibility in respect of such
paras in which serious irregularities may have been pointed out.

Your attention is also invited to the Commissioner’s instructions

contained in the circular No.F.10(87)/88/CA/F&G/635,dated
22/04/1988 vide which it has been laid down that the replies of
2
 3

Audit Instruction/Report must be furnished within a period of two

weeks.

It appears that the Department has failed to take notice of even

the instructions issued by the Commissioner.

PART NO.-II (CURRENT AUDIT)

The following record was requisitioned for Audit/Scrutiny on

test check basis vide the office Memo No.1/IAD/ZAP/SPZ/2012,
dated 06.01.2012.

1. Paid vouchers (Plan/Non-Plan)

2. Tender Files/Agreement Files
3. Accounts File
4. Work Order Register
5. Measurement Books
6. Budget Watch Register alongwith budget allocation file/letter
7. Unpaid Voucher Records
8. Contractor’s Ledger, (if any) certificate
9. G-8 Receipt Book along with challans and G-8 issue register
10. Daily diaries of JE, AE and EE drawing conveyance
allowances
11. PF & SB of Staff along with ECRs
12. Stock Book
13. Stationery Register & MB issue register
14. Hindrance Register
15. Circular File
16. Permanent Advance Register, if any
17. Imprest Register
18. Tender Opening Register
19. Cash book
20. Tender Form Sale Register
21. Property Register
22. Register regarding losses due to theft and fire etc. along
with FIR, if any,
23. Latest External Audit Report
24. Income Certificate duly signed by the Zonal Accounts
Branch,
25. Work Register,
26. Muster Roll with initial appointment with sanctions,
27. Muster Roll issue register,
28. Demand Register (verified /unverified demands),
29. Printed contractors bills/forms issue register with
requisition,
30. Earnest money Record,
31. List of Black listed Contractors,
32. Cheque Register,
33. Disbursement Register,
34. O.T.A. records, if any,
35. Log Book of vehicles, if any,
36. Children Education Allowance Register,
3
 4

37. Postage Register,

38. Muster Roll unpaid amount record, if any
39. Uniform Record,
40. Road cutting charges record,
41. Records of purchases made by the sub division, if any,
42. List of condemned article and auction record,
43. Bill Diary Register,
44. Attendance Register,
45. Any other auditable record.

PARA NO.-1 NON-PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

Out of the above requisitioned records, items at Sl. No.2 (P),

3(P), 5(p), 6(p),7,8, 10,11(P), 12, 14, 15, 16,20, 21, 22, 23,24,
25,26, 28(P), 31 to 36,37, 38 to 43 has not been produced to audit
for inspection. So far as the above mentioned non produced record
Audit has issued memos with the request to produce the record to
Audit for audit scrutiny at the earliest, but the department failed to
do so. Thus, Audit has observed that either the record is not
maintained or the production of the same appears to have been
avoided, and reasons for non-production of chain/linked up records
with regard to so produced records is best known to the department.
If, any irregularity/discrepancy is found in the non-produced records,
at any stage, the whole responsibility will lie on the department
itself.

However, as a result of test check of the records whatever

produced to audit, the following discrepancies/omissions/errors etc.,
came to the notice of the audit.

PARA NO.-2: IRREGULARITIES IN BUDGET WATCH REGISTER.

The following irregularities were found during the test audit of the
Budget Watch Register.

1. Paging of the complete register not done.

2. Paging certificate not given.
3. Cuttings/overwriting found in many places without any
attestations of the authority competent.
4. Signature of the dealing assistant not found on any entry.
Whereas each and every entry should be signed by the official
maintaining the register with countersignature by authority
competent.
5. No any test check done by the DDO.
6. Complete details of the each entry of budget not shown. The
official is directed to mention full details of the entry with
signature.

7. On scrutiny of the Budget Watch Register for the year 2009-10 & 2010-11, it
has been noticed that department has failed to keep proper watch on the

4
 5

allocations & expenditure during the financial year. The detail of the same is
given below:-
Budget Watch Register 2009-10
S.no. Head of Account Allocation Expenditure
1 Group-A T.E. 632842/-
2 Group-B - 1983164/-
3 Group-C - 13585086/-
4 Group-D - 2153442/-
5 Telephone - 34098/-
6 Imprest - 285026/-

Budget Watch Register 2010-11

S.no. Head of Account Allocation Expenditure
1 Group-A T.E. 502501/-
2 Group-B - 574062/-
3 Group-C - 2966519/-
4 Group-D - 2615248/-
5 Telephone - 36289/-
6 Imprest - 390026/-

8. The details like amount, letter no., date etc. not shown in each
allocation under particular head of account made in any of the
allocation, which is mandatory information.
9. It is clear that Budget Watch Register so maintained is not
proper and updated. Even the Budget slips are not shown on
the bills paid due to which it cannot be authenticated by audit
about the payment so made, by the Division.
10. No complete Budget Watch Registers were produced to
audit except one.
11. Budget Watch Register has not been maintained for
payments made to the contractors.

In view of the above, it is revealed that the department has

violated the norms of GFR for controlling the budget allocation &
expenditure during the said year. The irregularities may be
examined and regularized under intimation to Audit. Apart from
this, this could not be ascertained, whether, the expenditure
incurred/shown in the Cash Book is actually based on the actual
allocation/release under the each head of Account or not.

PARA NO.3: STATEMENT OF LOSSES AMOUNTING TO RS.151/-

DUE TO OVERPAYMENT ON A/C OF WRONG CALCULATIONS
OF CONTRACTUAL AMOUNT IN THE WORK ORDERS ISSUED:

During test check of some work orders issued, it was found that
overpayments were shown to different contractors than the actual
amount which is a loss to MCD. Competent authority is requested to
look into the matter to get the amount recovered from the
contractors and got deposited into the Mpl. Try. Under intimation to
audit.
5
 6

Sno. Date Name of Amount Should Difference

Contractor paid. be
1 22.06.09 M/s 17206/- 17200/- 06
D.K.Const.Co.
2 27.03.09 M/s Vinod 551814/- 551759/- 55
Kumar
3 -do- M/s Sudhir 278973/- 278945/- 28
Kumar
4 -do- M/s Ravi 23006/- 23000/- 06
Builders
5. 29.07.09 M/s Sudhir 15771/- 153743/- 28
Km
6 -do- -do-6 184174/- 184146/- 28
Total 151/-

There are many such other cases which needs to be checked

and proper recovery should be made from the concerned
contractors.

PARA NO.- 4: IRREGULARITIES IN STATIONERY STOCK BOOK: LOSS

OF RS. ------(approx.) ON ACCOUNT OF CASTING MISTAKE:

While conducting the physical verification of Stationery, the

shortage as found in the Stock Book has been tabulated below. The
shortage comes to Rs.260/- (approx) which may be made good by
way of depositing the cost of articles shown against each item, in the
Mpl. Treasury through G8 book/challans and be shown to Audit.

Detail of Casting Mistake in Stationery Stock Register:

S. Article Date O/ Issu Sho Should Short

No B e wn be
.
1. Electrostatic 11.02 37 5 31 32 01
Paper .11

Apart from the above, the following irregularities were also

noticed in the Stationery Stock Book: -

1. No proper paging certificate given.

2. Cuttings/overwriting using fluid is done in the register.
Overwriting is not permissible at all and cuttings, if any be
attested by the authority competent.
3. Signature of the issuing article not seen at many places.
4. No any signature of the competent authority seen.
5. In many cases there are no signatures of recipient of
articles.
6. Shadow file of the purchases made from the open market
not maintained in the office.

6
 7

7. As per Stationery Stock Registers, Items purchased and

entered in the register, but the issue of the same not
shown. So, the justification of the purchase and
consumption not clarified.
8. Entry of the articles received from CS (store) not entered
in proper manner in the Stock Book.
9. The indents for procurement not shown to audit.

The complete details of the purchases made from the open

market not shown in the Stock Register. No page number of the
Property Register is shown against the property items purchased.
And also, as the Property Register is not produced to audit for
scrutiny, the cross check of the items could not be done.

Apart from this the complete physical verification of the

items lying in the stock could not be done as it was verbally stated
that all the stationery items were locked in the office rooms, under
the control of the Election Office. As such, a certificate may be given
by the competent authority to audit that the articles shown as
balance in the Stationary Stock Book are actually lying in the store
and tallied with the balances available physically in a stock
book/store.

PARA NO.-5: IMPROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE IMPREST

REGISTER

During the course of audit, it was found that the Imprest

Register has not been maintained in a proper way. It could not be
replied by the staff as to how much imprest money was sanctioned
to the department, how the bills were recouped. Heavy expenditure
has been shown in imprest register. There are many such example
wherein the expenditure is more than Rs.10,000/-.Apart from the
above, following irregularities were found in the Imprest Register
produced by the department:

(1) The Imprest Register so produced (of audit

period).
(2) The total amount of imprest has not been
mentioned.
(3) No paging certificate at the beginning of the
register has been given;
(4) The register is not duly paged;
(5) No proper columns have been prepared in the
Imprest Register.
(6) No vouchers were produced to audit, so that
genuineness of the entries may be verified, in
current expenditures.
(7) No balance amount has been shown as opening
balance;

7
 8

(8) The complete detailed narration of the purchase,

also not shown, in the register like the cash memo
number, date, cost of the article, etc, And as no
stock entry is done, the issue of the article is also
not known and the justification of purchase is also
not clarified. This being a mandatory requirement,
as Mpl. Funds are being spent with no justification.

(9) Heavy expenditure has been shown on photocopy

of documents though there is a photocopy machine
in the office of Ex.Engg. hence heavy expenditure
on photocopies does not seems to be justified.
(10) The competent authority may look in to the matter
and direct the official to maintain a proper Imprest
Register with simultaneous entry in the Stock
Register or any other related record. Entries not
made date wise and month wise.
(11) Rs.30420/- has been shown paid to Sh. S.L.
Bairwa,Ex.Engg.(Pr) on a/c of
operation/maintenance of Govt. Vehicle No.
DL-2F DN0052 vide bill no. 1to23
dt.9/4/2010. It is not clear for what purpose
this bill was and from which agency
maintenance was got done and why not from
CWS, Jhandewalan;
(12) In the same subject Rs.25002/- has been
paid to Sh. S.L. Bairwa Ex.Engg.(Pr) vide bill
no.1 to 22 dt.28/6/10;
(13) Further payment on the same subject are as
under:
Bill no.1 to 18 for the period 29/6/2010 to
31/8/2010 of Rs.15552/-
Bill no. 1 to 18 for the period 15/7/10 to
9/8/10 of Rs.7298/-
Bill no. 1 to 39 for the period 6/9/10 to
10/1/11 on a/c of petrol charges for above
vehicle of Rs.31561/-
(14) Payment made for petrol w.e.f. 18/1/11 to
29/3/11 for Rs.15400/- to Sh. S.L. Bairwa for
above vehicle.
(15) Before incurring any expenditure, the standards of Financial
Proprietary does not seem to be observed.

PARA NO.6: SPLITTING UP OF WORK:

During the course of the scrutiny of the Tender Files/NITs

provided to Audit, it was observed that in NITs, the same tender was
called for different items with the same name of work. This shows
the split-up of work, to avoid having sanction from higher
authorities, which is also violation of GFR Rules, for example, Name
of Work: Construction of Grade Separator at Rani Jhansi Road.
Under this work many work orders have been issued pertaining to
8
 9

same place. Some of the work orders are, Work Order No. 13,dated
30.08.07, W.O. No.22, dated 17.07.09, W.O. No. 02, dated
21.04.09, W.O. No.01 dated 14.06.09, W.O. No.15 dated 02.07.09
contains same nature of work. There might be other cases showing
that work has been split up, needs clarification.

PARA NO.7: AUDIT OF REGISTER OF RELEASING EARNEST

MONEY/SECURITY:

The register produced is w.e.f. 06.05.08 onwards. Following

irregularities were found:
1. No paging is done;
2. No paging certificate is given in the beginning of the register;
3. No proper columns have been prepared like Serial no.,
particulars & G-8 no. is given with stamp and passing the bill
under the signature of Acctt/EE-XVIII, no details like
W.O.No. and date, scheme with S/H, amount with
bifurcation, E.M.Amount & Security amount, Voucher no.
date of security amount etc. etc. In some cases NIT No. is
not mentioned.
4. In this register the security money and earnest money has
been paid collectively but there is no mention of the page no.
of cash book/ Income Register from which the security
money and EM have been taken and verified by the
accountant hence it is very difficult to check each and every
items of payment. No NIT no. is mentioned.
5. During vouching of paid vouchers with Cash Book,
audit has observed that in case where the proof being
G-8 copy is lost by the contractor, simply an affidavit is
being obtained without proper language whereas it
should be on Rs.100/- stamp paper as Indemnity Bond
favoring MCD on a safer side.

PARA NO 8: IRREGULARITIES FOUND DURING AUDIT OF

VOUCHING:

During course of test check of vouchers, the following

irregularities were found:
1. No budget slip has been found mentioned on the face of many
of the vouchers;
2. In some vouchers, no voucher nos. are mentioned ;
3. The voucher nos. so mentioned on the paid vouchers and in
the cash book are not progressive but starts from serial no. 1
in every month;
4. Revenue stamps are not pasted on many of the vouchers
exceeding Rs.5000/-.
9
 10

5. The bills are not shown bounded.

PARA NO.9: IRREGULARITIES FOUND IN THE BILL FORM

ISSUE REGISTER:

Bill form issue register has been produced w.e.f. 05.02.05.

Following irregularities have been found in this register:-
(a) No paging or paging certificate has been given.
(b) The columns have not been maintained properly;
(c) At many entries there is no signature of the recipients. No
requisition letter has been produced before audit through which
bill forms or MBs have been issued to the Division , hence it is
very difficult to ascertain whether the no. of MB of bills or
Muster Rolls received by the staff of Division is correct or not.
(d) The forms have not been issued in sequence like bill form
no.53225 has been issued earlier than 53224 which should be
in order;

PARA NO.-10: IMPROPER PROCUREMENT OF BITUMEN

FROM OPEN MARKET

During the course of test audit of the Accounts Files of Div.

XVIII, it was seen in many files that Bitumen is being procured from
the open market. Where as, as per the terms and conditions stated
in the work orders, it is clearly mentioned that “Fresh supply of
Bitumen from Bharat Petroleum/Indian Oil/Hindustan Petroleum as
approved by E-in-C will be arranged by the contractor. Fresh receipt
for the same in original be submitted to the department as proof of
purchase from any of the oil companies. No receipt of any other
dealer/distributor/stokist etc. will be accepted.” While a test audit of
some of the work orders revealed that there was no receipt from an
approved supplier as mentioned above was available in the file.
Audit may be apprised of the fact that why/how the contractor is
allowed to use the Bitumen purchased from private dealers, and also
how the competent authority is approving/accepting the quality of
work.

PARA NO.11-: (A)-IRREGULARITIES IN TENDER AND

ACCOUNTS FILES. LOSS TO MCD FOR RS. /-.

A. WORK ORDER NO.01 DATED 21.04.08:

Name of work:Imp/Stg of Desh Raj Bhatia Marg in S.P.Zone;

S/H:P/F Railing from mother dairy chowk to hari mandir school:
Tender Amount: 3,70,211/-, Contractual amount: 6,31,997/-
(restricted up to Rs.5,99,500/-), Abatement,70.71% above;
NIT No.29/3 dated 28/01/2008;H.O.A:- LA Road;
Period of construction: 02 month, Name of contractor: M/s.

1. The budget of initial estimate has not been booked in the

divisional office itself.

10
 11

2. As per computerized sanction list placed in the file showing

4(four) nos. of contractors participated in sale/downloading of
tender documents. Hence the recovery of Rs.1500/- is still to
be recovered and deposited into the Mpl Treasury. The cost of
one tender document which was downloaded and recovered
and deposited into Mpl treasury being L-I.
3. As per schedule of item, one item named carriage of material
by mechanical transport loading and unloading and stacking of
malba, read up to 18.00 km. The corrigendum vide dated
4/02/2008(having no dispatch no.), showing the rate revision
from Rs.74.46 to Rs.77.21/cum for nit no. 29/3 dated
18/01/2008. The rate of the same is shown revised for all items
i.e. 1,2 & 3 of nit no.29 dated 18/01/2008.
Whereas rate taken/considered by planning department as
Rs.70.19/- to execute the said work, which is even below the
rate initially taken as Rs.74.46/- in the schedule of items. The
reason for issuing the corrigendum with regard to change of
rate is also not seems to be justifiable. The same needs
clarification.(total quantity in bill paid is 10.07cum).
4. The agreement is not shown sealed by the corporation to give it
legal shape.
5. The labour report for the period 1/6/2008 to 24/06/2008 is not
obtained and placed in the file.
6. The recovery on account of drinking water is neither recovered
from the bill nor any document and sample test report is
obtained and placed in the file.
7. The item of removal of malba has shown executed and
Rs.777.05/- has been paid on revised rate Rs.77.21/cum.
whereas no SLF slips have been obtained and placed in the file.
Hence the recovery amounting to Rs.777.05/- may be
recovered and deposited into Mpl treasury.
8. Quality test report is not obtained and placed in the file. Some
recovery amounting to Rs.40000/- were withheld and later on
released and further Rs.10000/- were shown withheld on the
same bill in which Rs.40000/- were released. Further
Rs.10000/- were also shown released.

B. Work Order No.11 dated 30.06.08. Loss to MCD Rs. /-.

Name of work: Construction of Grade separator at Rani Jhansi

Road(LA Road):
S/H::
Tender Amount: Rs. 1,08,00,000/-, Contractual amount:
Rs.93,83,87,691/-, Time of completion-27 months, NIT No.,
Name of Contractor:- M/s DRA-Brahamaputra Consortium Ltd.(JV)
C/o Dinesh Chandra R Aggrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd,Aggarwal
complex,near lion’s hall,Dessa-385535 Gujarat.
Estimated Amount:- Rs.82.00crore Rate:-2.974%(Ist rebate) on all
items except item no.3.9.1&3.9.2 IInd rebate @ 0.5% on all items

11
 12

Since the work is in progress and not finalized, the observations

available in the file are as under some information were sought vide
L.No.10 are not produced to audit till date:-
1. No MB is available in the Tender and Account file;
2. Most of the mandatory papers, documents, test reports sole
mix formula duly approved (by designated laboratory/third
party checking) were not available in the file.
3. Although up to Xth R/A bills were shown passed in the file and
office copies are placed in the file. Also a fourth escalation bills
are passed and placed.
4. The bank guarantee against advance of mobilization as per with
the terms and conditions/Terms of tender documents duly
approved by the authorities competent. The bank guarantee for
amounting to Rs.4,20,00,000/-(Rs.4.20crores) have been
expired on 31/12/2011(valid up to 31/12/2011) the same have
not been renewed till 23/1/2012. The same is required to be
done immediately in the interest of MCD.
5. No sole mix/designed mix formula for different grade of COS
are not placed in the file. Although some test reports of CC
Curbs in 26no. in total are placed in the file. But last CC Curbs
test reports shown 32nd test report which shows either the CC
Curbs report are not placed in the file or the sample of balance
of difference could be failed and not placed in the file may be
kept with engineer. All sample reports are of 28 days and
above no single sample of seven days test is available in the
file(the same may clarified).
6. Income tax clearance certificate is not placed in the file but one
demand of Rs.400crore(Rs four hundred crore only) is issued to
contractor U/s 197 of I.T act 1961 by ITO(TDS range)
Ahmedabad is shown placed in the file, also needs clarification
whether the demanded tax is paid/cleared or not.
7. Two nos of steel test report 10mm and 20mm and one water
test report is placed in the file, apart from the CC Curbs test
report. No other material is shown tested and placed in the file.
8. The scheme is of Rs.17.772.00lacs(177.72crore) approved by
LG on dated 17/7/2006 out of which 42.14crores work over pull
bangush railway line, the portion over railway line is to be
completed by railway, the advance payment was already been
made to railway authorities to Rs.20crore .

VARIATION IN THE WORK EXECUTED:

S.No. Description Qty. as Qty. Diff./Variation
per executed
schedule
1 Demolishing cement 68 cum - 68 cum
concrete…
2. Providing and laying 13.5 11.12 2.38 less
at or near….
3. Supplying and 270 151.22 118.78 cum less
stacking at site….
4. Filling available 270 151.22 118.78 cum
excacated…….
12
 13

5. Providing and laying 9 57.42 48.42 cum

in position…. excess
6. Brick work with FPS 20.7 21.64 0.94 cum
bricks……. excess
7. 40mm thick find 300 280.82 19.18 sqm less
dressed stone….
8. 40 mm thick find 300 200.82 19.18 sqm less
dressed stone…

C.Work Order No.20 dated 12.08.2010.

Name of work: Const. of MC Primary School at Gulabi Bagh in

S.P.Zone: S/H:- Installation of M.S.Railing and allied works of
school building,
Tender Amount: Rs. 3,91,697 /-, Contractual amount: Rs.3,77,948
/-, Time of completion-01 months, H/A:- XL-VII-Edu, Abatement-
3.51% below. Name of Contractor: - M/s Sudhir Kumar

1. The budget of initial estimate is not shown booked in the

divisional office itself.
2. As per transaction list these contractor have been downloaded
the tender documents, but recovery from one contractor is
shown recovered. The recovery balance amount from two no. of
contractors 2x500=Rs.1000/- is need to be recovered.
3. The approval from competent authority is obtained accepting
the single tender. The concurrence from finance was subject to
approval of accepting the single tender from competent
authority. But final bill is passed and paid no approval from
competent authority is obtained to accept single tender and
placed in the file.
4. No MB is obtained and placed in the accounts file whereas Ist
and final bill is shown passed and paid. But during the audit
same was not received to check the test checks.
5. 6 no. of labour report blank (i.e. without spell and period,
without signature of JE and AE) are placed in the file. Neither
recovery @ Rs.200/- per labor report is recovered nor complete
labor report is obtained and placed in the file.
6. Cement statement is placed blank in the file, i.e. no description,
quantity, coefficient, quantity of cement etc. and without
signature of JE and AE on it. No quantity of cement consumed
is shown anywhere.
7. No cement signature is shown obtained and placed in the file.
8. Test check statement is shown filled up, but is without
signature of JE and AE.
9. Completion report is placed in the file is without signature of
EE(Pr).
10. Neither proof of drinking water and construction water is
obtained/placed in the file nor recovery on account of drinking
water and construction is made from the Ist and final bill placed
in the account file.

13
 14

D. Work Order No.9 dated 25.06.2010.

Name of work: Imp/upgradation of surrounding of hotels and guest

house at paharganj in S.P.Zone:
S/H: Imp of Kabutar Khana at Rani Jhansi Road and Punchkuiyan
Road round about (Pigeon feeding platform) H/A: SRF
Contractual amount: Rs. 2,34,835/-, Abatement:- 1.00% above
Name of Contractor: M/s Ajay Brothers, Time of completion: 01
months.

1. The initial budget of estimate has not been booked in the

divisional office itself.
2. The recovery on account of tender documents downloading/sale
from five nos. of contractors who have downloaded the tender
documents as per transaction but recovery from one contractor
is recovered. The recovery of balance amount 4x500=2000/- is
still stands to be recovered under intimation to audit.
3. The testing charges @ 1% is added in justification work out by
the SW/ASW/Deptt. Since no tests were shown conducted in
the work. The recovery @ 1% is not shown recovered from the
contractors Ist and final bill. The same may be recovered under
intimation to audit. The recovery comes to Rs. 2042/-.
4. Cement test report is not placed in the file.

5. The recovery of construction water is not recovered from the

bill even no test report is obtained and placed in the file.

E. Work Order No.50 dated 14.03.08.

Name of work: Const. of two nos. of foot over bridge at Rani Jhansi
Road and Desh Bandhu gupta Road near Mata Jhandewalan Devi
Mandir in S.P.Zone:
B/H:- LA Road.
Percentage rate- Item Rate, Contractual amount- 1,80,31,488/-
Estimated Value-Rs.2184500/-, Time of completion-4 months ,
DOS(act):- 13/3/2008, Agg:- 23/3/2008, DOC(Act):- Work in
progress.
Name of Contractor:- M/s Maggo Construction Company.

1. No final bill is passed till date whereas DOC is already elapsed.

2. No MB is available in the accounts file.
3. Upto IVth RA bill is passed uptill now.
4. Most of the statements are blank and incomplete like labour
reports, test check statement etc. in the some statements
blank signatures are shown without filling of the same.
5. Third party test check report is not obtained and placed in the
file, and almost Rs. 1.67lacs out of 1.80lacs contractual value is
shown spend/passed. Which is strictly objectionable as no
single bill is supposed to be passed without third party checking
report, needs clarification.
14
 15

6. The estimated value of said work is shown as Rs. 176.05lacs

the same administratively approved, but contractual value
shown as Rs. 1,80,31,488/-.
7. No purchase bill of cement, steel etc were obtained and placed
in the file.

VATRIATION IN THE WORK EXECUTED:

S.No Description Qty. as per Qty. Diff./Variatio
. schedule executed n
1 Earth Work in 2100 cum 2566.63 466.63 excess
excavation… cum
…
2. Consolidation 4200 sqm 4948.32 748.32 excess
of sub- sqm
grade……
3. Supply & (a) 13.2 118.46 17.66 excess
stacking of mm-
stone…. 100.80 118.98 137.22 less
cum
(b) 11.2m
m-256.20
4. Spreading of 4200 sqm -
stone…… 4200 less

5. Supplying (a) 63mm 897cum 132.60 excess

and to 45 mm-
stacking…. 764.40cum
(b) 53mm
to
22.4mm- 901.07cu 136.67 excess
764.40cum m
-
6. Laying water 764.40cum 897 cum 132.60 excess
bound……
7. Laying water 764.40cum 894cum 129.6 excess
bound….
8. Supply & 75.60 cum 83.88 cum 11.28 excess
stacking….
9. Supply & 75.60cum 86.47 cum 10.87 excess
stacking…
10 Providing & 4200 sqm 1529.65 2670.35 less
laying…. cum
11 2cm premix 4200 sqm 1529.65 2670.35 less
carpet…. sqm
12 Providing 4200 sqm 1529.65 2670.35 less
seal coat…. sqm

E. Work Order No.56 dated 29.01.10

15
 16

Name of work: Improvement and upgradation of Hotels & Guest

houses at Paharganj near New Delhi Rly. Station:
S/H: Const. of duct, drainage and providing RMC on carriage way of
main bazaar from N.Delhi Rly. Station to R.K.Mission Ashram.
Tender Amount: Rs.3,59,42,424/-, Percentage rate-23.25% above,
Contractual amount- 4,42,99,038/-,Time of completion-4 months,

(a) As per finance observations, the amount of

Rs.4,42,99,031/- was restricted but neither in the work order
nor in the contract agreement the word “restricted” has been
mentioned;
(b) No date of execution of agreement is mentioned. The
agreement is also not sealed by the Corporation.
(c) Ist RA Bill has been passed on 14.05.10 for Rs.3865628/-,
nd
2 RA bill has been passed on 30.07.10 for Rs.7928168/-. In
the first running bill no date of actual start has been mentioned
but in the 2nd running bill the date of start is given as 08.03.10.
(d) The photocopy of cement receipt is dated 14.04.10 from
Shree Cement of 600 bags and dated 12.03.10 for 600 bags;
(e) Upto 23.08.10, no Job Mix receipt was found in the file.
Only one test report of cement was found that too on 28.06.10.
(f) No third party checking is available in the file though it was
mentioned in the estimate. No details of cement consumption,
no cement register was found in the file. In the file test check
statement, steel statement, cement was found in the file but all
are blank. No test check from JE, AE or EE was placed in the
file. No bitumen consumption statement or bitumen invoice was
found. No RMC receipt, no report from SLF was obtained and
placed in the file,
(g) In the note dated 14.01.10, the Ex.Engg.(Pr) had clearly
mentioned that amount will be restricted upto Rs.44299037/-
and payment will be made after third party quality assurance
but no such checking by the third party found in the file (till the
date of audit). Either no proper documents have been placed in
the file or not obtained from the contractor,needs clarification.

PARA NO.11:- NON UPDATION OF RECORD IN THE TENDER

FILE VIDE NIT NO.26/3 DATED:12/1/2010(W.O.NO. 56
DATED: 29/1/2010):

As per transaction list (main view), only one contractor namely

M/s Ashok Kumar Gupta is shown downloaded the tender document
as per NIT No. 26/3 dated 12/1/2010 (T.No.100462) and the same
was shown completed. But as per note put up for approval from
finance and competent authority to accept the rate and agency two
no. of contractors shown as 1. M/s Ashok Kumar Gupta 2. M/s Amit
Construction Company is mentioned on the noting sheet that M/s
Amit Construction Company has not quoted the rate audit is in the
view 1. When only one contractor has downloaded the tender
16
 17

documents how second name of contractor appeared in the noting

sheet. 2. The recovery on account of tender cost from the both
contractors has not shown recovered. The lose of Rs. 500/- + 500/-
needs to be recovered with clarification of above to the audit party.

PARA NO.12: RECOVERY OF WATER CHARGES WITH REGARD

TO DRINKING & CONSTRUCTION WATER

During the test check of Accounts Files so produced for audit,

Audit has observed that the department has not recovered the water
charges with regard to drinking & construction purposes from the
contractor’s bills. As per the terms & conditions of the Tenders, the
contractor shall make his own arrangements of water for
construction purposes as well as drinking. In case the contractor
does not make his own arrangement, recovery @1.5% and 0.5%
respectively will be made from the bill of the contractor. It is
noticed that in most of the cases, there is no such report attached
and as such the department could not recover/deduce the charges
from the contractor bill on account of drinking water. AS the
contractor has failed to submit/produce the certificate that he
himself has arranged the drinking water for the labour so deputed on
a particular work.

In this connection EE-XVIII is requested to look into the matter

at his personal level and pass necessary instruction in this regard
and also review similar other cases in which water charges if any, be
made, under intimation to Audit

PARA NO.13: WRITING OF CHEQUES ON PASSED BILLS FROM

THE ZONAL CASH BOOK WITHOUT SHOWING THE INCOME IN
THE DIVISIONAL CASH BOOK:

During the course of vouching of the paid vouchers, audit has

observed that almost all the cheques are being written in the cash
book without showing any income in the Income side in the
Divisional Cash Book whereas as per instructions issued and
guidelines given during the monthly meeting of audit in the zonal
accounts office, it was repeatedly stressed to maintain the record of
transfer voucher/release and to show the details of income in the
income side of Cash Book with respective Head of Accounts and
income therein. But during the course of audit of vouching, audit has
observed that compliance of said instructions is not being made by
the Divisional Office itself. In said circumstances it is difficult for
audit to reconcile or verify the payments released by way of issue of
cheques or actually released from the HQ or not. Due to such lapses
possibility of undue benefits to contractors as well as other
malpractices in account of payments could not be denied. If undue
payment is made by the Divisional Office for these lapses, the
department will itself be held responsible.

17
 18

PARA NO.-14: IMPROPER MAINTENANCE OF CASH BOOK

(PLAN & NON PLAN)

During the course of test audit of the Cash Books (Plan & Non
Plan), it was found that the bank reconciliation of newly opened
account of RTGS had not been done by the division whereas it
is mandatory requirement since a separate account of RTGS
has been opened at the Divisional level in the name of
Ex.Engg. concerned. . Further, the following irregularities were
noticed:-

Cash Book (Non Plan)

1. No paging done, which is mandatory requirement.
2. No paging certificate given.
3. No closing of the Cash Book Done with proper
authentication.
4. Opening and closing balances not shown and the Bank
Statement also not produced to Audit for cross check.
5. On perusal of the Cash Book, it is not clear as whether the
payments made are against the release through RTGS or
cheque amount received from HQ & Zone. As no any
details are shown at Income Side and expenditure side as
well on each demand being released from time to time.
Since there are the instructions from HQ & as per monthly
meeting being held in the office of ACA/DCA of SPZ to
maintain the record of release being transfer
vouchers/release through RTGS be also mentioned/pasted
in the Cash Book itself.
6. The details of income released though RTGS are not being
shown in the income side of the cash book of Plan & Non
Plan. It is very difficult to ascertain whether the whole
amount demanded was released or not.

PARA NO.-15: VARIATIONS IN ITEMS OF WORK PERFORMED

During the test check of the Running/Final Bills attached in the

Accounts files, it has been noticed by the Audit that there are
variations in quantities and items as shown in the schedule of work
and quantities and items shown in the MBs on account of work
performed by the contractor in comparison to the quantities
mentioned in the schedule. Normally, variations upto permissible
limit only is allowed in any item of work. But, there are a number of
cases, which contains variations in items and quantities of
permissible limit. A list of such work orders, has already mentioned
above. . The competent authority is requested to get the same
examined and audit may be informed regarding action taken in this
regard and the remedial steps being taken to stop such practices.

PARA NO.16: IRREGULARITIES IN SIGNING OF BILLS BY THE

A.E./E.E.S
18
 19

As per rule, it is mandatory to do always-dated signatures. But

on scrutiny of the paid vouchers, it has been noticed that the A.E.s
do not put the date after the signatures on the bills. Likewise the
E.E. also has not put the date after signature on the third page of
the bill, that is why forwarding the Bill for passing to the Divisional
Accountant, whereas there are clear instructions printed on the Bill
form itself that the Bills are to be signed along with date by the
officer concerned. It may ensured by the authorities competent that
the same may not occur in future.

PARA NO.- 17: IRREGULARITIES IN THE ECR

During the course of test check of the ECR produced w.e.f.

may2010, the following irregularities are noticed-

1. Paging of the complete register not done

2. Paging certificate not given.
3. Signature of the dealing official and test check by the
competent authority, not seen.
4. Entries of DA, Bonus, etc., drawn not shown.
5. There is no mention of DOB and DOR in many cases;
6. Cuttings and over writings seen at many places, which are
without any attestations.
7. It has been reported that one driver is attached with the car of
Ex.Engg.(Pr) but no post is sanctioned;
8. TA is being drawn by the Ex.Engg(Pr);
9. No conveyance allowance is being paid to Mr. Jagat Bhoosen
Meena,AE, reason may be given;
10. No month has been mentioned in the ECR for payment of
salary in the case of Sh Jai Deep Atkaan,AE, Sunil Deewan and
in other many cases.
11. No reason for non grant of annual increment to Sh. Nepal
Singh Yadav on 1.7.10 (BP-17920/-), like wise no annual
increment has been shown granted to Sh. Sunil Dawar on
1.7.10(BP-16290/-), same in the case of Sh. K.K. Gupta(BP-
12700/-);
12. No mention of arrear of DA, Bonus etc in the ECR.

PARA NO.-18: CHECKING OF THE G8 BOOKS:

The department has not produced the G-8 Books Stock

Register, so it could not be ascertained as how many G-8 books
were used by the division during the period of audit. However, the
dealing assistant/TC produced the following G-8 books:-
1. 43201 to 43300.
2. 70901 to 70938-20.06.11 to10.01.12(39 to 100 unused).
3. 337001 to 337100-25.03.08 to 13.07.2009.
4. No stamp of cahier has been found in G-8
no.337039,337040&337041.
19
 20

However, the department has not produced the Income

Verification Certificate to be obtained from the Zonal
Cashier/Accounts Branch with regard to remittances. The
same be produced to audit immediately.

The department may also produce the remaining G-8 books, if

any, used during the audit period, otherwise in case of any
discrepancy found in non produced G-8 books, the sole responsibility
will lie on the shoulders of the concerned department.

PARA NO.19: NON-SUBMISSION OF LABOUR REPORTS

Clause of the contract provides that the contractor shall submit

by the 4th and 19th of every month to the engineer-in-charge, a true
statement showing in respect of the second half of the presiding
month and the first half of the current month respectively.
1. The number of labourers employed by him on the work.
2. Their working hours.
3. The damages paid to them, if any.
4. The accidents that occurred during the said fortnight showing
the circumstances under which they happened and the extent
of damages and injury caused by them.
5. The number female workers as who have been allowed
maternity benefits, according to clause and the amount paid to
them, if any, failing which the contractor shall be liable to pay
to MCD a sum not exceeding Rs.200/- for each default or
materially incorrect statement.

A test of the accounts file produced to Audit, however it

revealed that the contractor have neither submitted the Labour
Reports nor any penalty has been imposed upon them, in a
number of cases, the reasons to which be clarified to Audit apart
from recovering the required penalty in all such cases, under
intimation to Audit. In some cases where the labour reports have
been furnished is not satisfactory i.e. incomplete reports have
been furnished.

PARA NO.- 20: PROCEDURAL LAPSES IN ‘E’ TENDERING

During the course of test audit of Accounts Files in some case

Tender Files, audit has observed that there are some procedural
lapses on account of preparation of computerized comparative
statements along with quotation of respective
participants/contractors placed in the Accounts Files/Tender Files,
showing the disparities like in Comparative Statements, the name
of firm/contractor’s name is shown for eg., “M/S Vinod Kumar”
shown in the Comparative Statement being the name of
20
 21

contractor, but Work Order was issued to HMP, (as per the
prevalent practice before start of ‘E’ Tendering”). In the said
circumstances, it is becoming difficult for audit to treat the
genuine authenticated participant like above, as there is no any
other document/paper placed in the Accounts/Tender files that
“M/s Vinod Kumar” & “HMP” are the same authority. Due to said
procedural lapses there is no system/document to locate the
authority like HMP belongs to Sh.Vinod Kumar.
Keeping in view of the above, it seems that while allotting the
I.D.No. to contractors form participation in the tender/codal
procedure instead of allotting the I.D.no. to the company/unit
(through which the contractor is carrying his business like M/s
HMP is being run by the contractor Sh.Vinod Kumar). But I.D. is
given to the contractor not to his/her company/unit whereas the
Registration with M.C.D. is his/her company/unit not by name of
contractor. The name of M/s HMP should be mentioned in the
comparative statement not Sh. Vinod Km. The said practice needs
improvement for effective, proper and healthy procedure in the
‘E’ Tendering system.
Authority competent is requested to look into the matter and
take necessary steps to streamline the ‘E’ Tendering system in the
M.C.D. to place some relevant record/information/document in the
relevant file showing genuineness/bonafide participation in the
codal procedure.

PARA NO.21: NON-CONSIDERATION/UTILIZATION OF

INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE WITH MCD LIKE ARCHITECT
DEPARTMENT RESULTING IN MISUSE OF MUNICIPAL FUND:

During the course of audit of this Division from time to time

audit has observed that the drawing and designs and consultancy
services are being utilized through outside agencies/ contractors
whereas there is a full fledge department with infrastructure like
Architect Department in MCD for preparing drawings and designs
for the various projects of govt. buildings. Roads, flyovers grade
separators etc.etc. Audit has observed that no single drawing and
design has been got prepared/approved from Architect
Department of MCD which resulting misuse of municipal fund by
way of spending huge amount for these purposes to outside
agencies/contractors. This point was also raised in the previous
audit report. The Competent Authority is requested to look into
this matter and take necessary steps accordingly under intimation
to audit.

PARA NO.22: NON MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN

EDUCATION ALLOWANCE RECORD:

A TEST CHECK of the Budget Register shows that Children

Education Allowance was paid to the following employees but no
any record ha been maintained by the department:-

21
 22

1. Sh. J.D.Atkan, AE- Rs.18400/- , Sep-08 to Sept.-09 (Not clear

for one or two child)
2. No name mentioned- Rs.41894/- April-09 to June-09( This
heavy amountneeds to be checked and if find improper,needs
recovery);
3. Likewise Reimbursement for Rs. 46512/- has been shown
without any detail.

Competent Authority is requested to get the record of CEA

prepared and proper details should be mentioned in it.

PARA NO.23: ENHANCEMENT IN THE BILL OF TELEPHONE:

A test check of the entries of Budget Watch Register shows that

average bill of telephone installed in the office of EE(Project)/SPZ
was either 1300 or below w.e.f. 1.09.10 to 31.10.11 but suddenly
the bill has gone to Rs.2329 during march-10, 2255 during may-
10, 1868 during june-10, etc.etc. It is also pertinent to mention
here tht all the technical staf has been provided mobile phone on
behalf of MCD. Hence misuse of the telephone cannot be denied,
keeping in view the enhancement of the bill.

Competent authority is requested to get the same looked into

and check misuse of telephone.

PARA NO 24: NON MAINTAINENCE/MONITORING OF

RECORD OF FEES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/DOWNLOAD OF
TENDER FORM

Since the E tendering system has been introduced in the MCD,

audit has observed that department has not
maintained/monitored the record of fees on account of
sale/download of tender forms, as no any record is being
maintained in the department. A register be maintained with
pasting of computerized vendor list at one side & on the other side
amount with G-8 number & date from whom the tender form is
downloaded & participated in the sale of tender forms be
mentioned against each. In absence of said record the amount
realized on account of sale/download of tender form cannot be
audited. There are losses to MCD, which is beyond
calculation in absence of said record

The authority competent is requested to pass necessary

instructions to follow-up the procedure as mentioned above &
recover the above recovery from the contractor who had/has
down loaded the tender documents from time to time, from the
date of introduction of ‘E’ Tendering system till to date under
intimation to audit. The same was also pointed out in the
previous audit reports issued for the last three to four
times but no concrete steps have been shown taken till
22
 23

date. The authority competent is requested to look into this

matter at personal level.

PARA NO.25:EXECUTION OF WORKS NOT BASED ON

COMPONENTS IN THE SCHEMES DULY APPROVED BY
VARIOUS AUTHORITIES COMPETENT:

During the course of audit, audit has observed that some of the
work orders listed below had been issued for execution of work
which are not covered under the components of the scheme of
const. of grade separator at Rani Jhansi Road, duly approved by
the various authorities competent whereas no any expenditure
beyond the approved scheme is allowed to be executed. The list of
such work orders with name of work as sub-head under the said
scheme like :-
Sno. W.O. No. & Date Name of Work as S/H of scheme
Bill passed
Of construction of grade separator

1. 13/30.08.07 Const. of Internal road at Sanjay Gandhi

Transport Rs.17,41,593/-
Nagar for shifting of Tyre Mkt.
2. 22/17.07.09 Cleaning of site & surface leveling for
shops of Rs.22,720/-
Tyre Mkt.at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar.etc.
3 -do- Const. of Internal road at Sanjay Gandhi
Transport Rs.844973/-
Nagar for shifting of Tyre Mkt. (Ist RA bill)
4. -do- Cleaning of site & surface leveling for shops of
Rs.26,281/-
Tyre Mkt.at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar.etc.
(All the contracts have been awarded to M/s Rajesh
Const. co.)
5. 02/21.04.09 Barricading of site at SGT Ngr
Rs.437454/-
6. 01/14.06.07 P/F demarcation boards and sign boards
At SGT Ngr. For shifting of Tyre Mkt.
Rs.53736/-

There are many such other cases.

From the above, it is clear that expenditure so incurred are not

covered under the said scheme because the area of Sanjay Gandhi
Transport Ngr. is far away from the site of construction of grade
separator at Rani Jhanshi Road, moreover, this was not taken earlier
in the scheme.

The same points were raised during the course of previous

audit also and audit had issued one audit memo vide
no.IAD/ZAP/SPZ/09/04 dated 28-07-09 for soliciting the
clarification. The department replied the memo stating that the
23
 24

above expenditures were necessary for shifting of the Tyre Mkt. from
the alignment/clearance of site of grade separator at Rani Jhani
Road. It was also stated that the said works have been charged from
the contingencies of the main scheme of grade separator at Rani
Jhansi Road and very much necessary for the project.

Audit is in the view that when the said works were necessary to
be executed, why these were not considered earlier at the time of
preparation of preliminary estimates of the schemes. If these were
inevitably required, then why being charged with heavy amount out
of contingency head of this scheme. Rather it should have had been
incorporated as the mandatory components of the scheme earlier.
Now the authority competent is requested to get the said scheme
revised after incorporating all said works along with other works
needs to be executed and incorporated as mandatory components,
so that undue pressure/audit paras from any other authority/agency
can be avoided in the interest of MCD. Also the competent authority
may like to see that how many such expenditure were incurred in
total and ensure whether these works comes/covered in the
contingency of the scheme under intimation to audit.

PARA NO.26:HIRING OF JCB MACHINE WITH OPERATOR @

RS. 8500/-:

Two bills of Rs.76500/- and Rs.93500/- have been found during

checking of cash book wherein JCB Machines have been hired @
Rs.8500/- per day. N the bill of Rs.76500/- and Rs.93500/-, there is
no certificate from any competent authority that the work was
carried out for whole day except the approval of note of Engg. Deptt.
by DC/SPZ. Even in the bill of Rs.76500/-, there is no bill produced
by the owner of JCB, no original sanction (but photocopy) has been
placed in the file. The action has been shown at emergency basis
and taking the base of rate paid by the Bldg. Deptt.. It is pertinent
to mention here that even Bldg. deptt. has also hired the JCB
machines in emergency.Thus the deptt. though knowing the fact
that JCB machines are being hired time and again, did not bothered
to call tender and to obtain a competitive rate . Each time M/s
Dinesh Malhotra is called for JCB @ Rs.8500/- per hour treating it
justified rate. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that MCD has its
own arrangement for JCB etc. in the DEMS Department or E&M
Deptt. If such machineries are available with these departments and
if can be made available to Engg. Deptt., MCD can save amount
being spent on hiring on JCB and other machine.

PARA NO.-27: IRREGULARITIES FOUND IN THE PERSONAL

FILES & SERVICE BOOKS

During test check of some personal files and service books of

the Division, it was noticed that these files are not being maintained
in a proper way like all the relevant documents are not attached, the
24
 25

columns in Service Books are not filled up properly, the leave

account is not prepared properly etc.etc. Some irregularities found in
the PF & SB on test check basis is mentioned below:

1. PF & SB of Sh.Manish Kumar Meena,JE.:

(a) The calculation of EL is wrong the total of 17+15=22 has
been shown which should be 32, this needs rectification;
(b) Non of copies of Education certificates are attested by CA;
(c) The joining reports photocopy is placed in the file and not
the original one;
(d) The offer of appointment letter is placed in the file but
appointment orders copy is not placed in the file;
(e) No entry of further increment in the service book;

2. PF & SB OF Sh.Shiv Omkar,Beldar:

(a) No details of education qualification at page no.04 of SB;
(b) The deduction of EL has not been made in a proper way
like 9days leave has been deducted from EL account as 315-
9=306. The total no. of EL is only 300 and not 315
(c) Wrong fixation of pay,one increment excess-The
incumbent was drawing his pay @Rs.3200/-w.e.f 1.4.2006 in
the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200,on 1.04.07 he was
granted ACP in the pay scale of Rs.2610-60-2910-65-3300-70-
4000 his pay has been fixed @ Rs.3440/- w.e.f.01.04.07 as
3200+100=3300, next stage=3300+70=3370, due increment-
3370+70=3440/- DNI 01.01.08, his pay should be fixed
@Rs.3370/- w.e.f.01.04.07, his pay has been fixed as under in
the pay scale 5200-20200(GP1800)
1.1.06 6060+1800=7860
1.4.06 6300+1800=8100
1.7.06 6550+1800=8350
1.7.07 6810+1800=8610
1.7.08 7070+1800=8870
Which is also wrong DNI has been given in 1.4.06 instead of
1.4.07.

(d) No signature in column no.8;

(e) No further leave application are available from 2009,2010
&2011 in the file;

3. PF & SB of Sh. Lalit Sharma,JE:

(a) EL form not completed;
(b) Educational qualification page not completed;
(c) Police verification certificate not attached in the file;
(d) Copied of certificates not attested;
(e) Medical certificate not attached in the PF.

PARA NO.-28: OTHER AUDIT OBSERVATIONS:

25
 26

1. During the scrutiny of the record maintained in the Division, it

was found that in numerous cases entries have been strike off
and rewritten, also many entries were found which were to be
rectified. The entries were also not attested by the competent
authority, which is objectionable. The dealing assistant is
therefore instructed to get all such types of entries attested by
the competent authority and also ensure that in future all the
entries are recorded in Registers with utmost care so that no
cutting/overwriting is required in the entries at a later stage.
2. Paging of the Tender Opening Register is not done and the
paging certificate not given.

3. As per the Government of India’s Instructions, any payment

exceeding Rs.5000/- made to any receipt should be made only
after taking the acknowledgement of the receipt on a Revenue
Stamp of Rs.1/- in token payment having been received by
him. A review of paid vouchers shows that the Running/Final
bills attached, no any Revenue Stamp is affixed for the
payment exceeding Rs.5000/-. Whereas the signatures of the
contractor should have been taken on the affixed Revenue
Stamp, so as to bind the Contractor that the payment worked is
agreed upon. Most of the Vouchers where the Revenue Stamp
should be affixed were found without revenue stamp as
mentioned above. In view of the above, the authority
competent should ensure that no bill be passed in future
without pre-receipt on a Revenue Stamp by the contractor.
4. The Demand Register produced to Audit could be cross tallied
with the demands sent to the HQ for the payments to made to
the contractors etc., due to non production of the file containing
the attested copies of all the demands raised by the division.
On personal enquiry, it was known that no such file is being
maintained. The competent authority may direct the dealing
assistant to maintain a file containing all the copies of the
demands raised for the ready perusal. Each entry of the
Demand register is neither signed nor any date shown. The
Cash Book so maintained is not reconciled with Demand
Register.
5. Agreement Typing Fee was not being received from the
contractors.
6. The MB Issue Register so produced was w.e.f. 14.06.07
onwards. 20 MBs were found in stock. Neither the mandatory
columns were not prepared or paging certificate in the
beginning given. At many columns there is no signature of
issuing or recipient. Cuttings and over writings have been found
at many pages. The columns are not filled up properly.
7. An amount of Rs. 350050/- was calculated as lapsed deposit as
this amount remained unclaimed during the last audit for the
period taken w.e.f. 21.03.05 to 28.06.07. The competent
authority may apprise the Audit whether this amount has been
deposited back into the Mpl. Try or not.

26
 27

Clarifications be given to audit for the above mentioned

irregularities, at the earliest.

INTERNAL AUDIT
OFFICER
ZAP/S.P.ZONE

27