Why should there be any work undertaken by any Government department without adhering to codal formalities, without the work being supported by budgetary allocation, there being absence of approval from the designated administrative authority, bypassing of mandatory e-tendering and without technical formalities unless there were some motives behind. Such an approach employed over years without being detected and checked resolutely, generates a practice which gradually gains legitimacy and all the codal, financial and administrative guidelines get rendered as optional if not absolutely redundant. It is here that ugly and corrupt deals are sprouted and set and foolproof Governmental guidelines remain confined to files only and thus getting utterly embroiled. We have instances and have been reporting too, that the system at many instances, was found so much undone that works completed were shown as having been restarted meaning a connect with what happened and what was shown is missing at monitoring levels. Again, glaring breach of rules were intermittently found having taken place with impunity in many departments where funds were shown released in full when in reality the works were still incomplete. When a mechanism is evolved and guidelines and do’s and don’ts are issued, how is it possible that violations take place unless those guidelines were very strictly enforced. It is a two edged monitoring system. One- no work to be undertaken unless all the formalities as mentioned above are confirmed to have been meticulously observed and two- a sort of concurrent audit was associated with works involving substantial amount of cost. Physical verification not only at the end but at each stage would be taken care of by such a type of austere verification and auditing mechanism. The practice of releasing final payments before completion of works, wherever in practice, needs to be totally discouraged and stopped and it is what the inspecting teams have reportedly also opined so that much needed accountability and transparency were made hallmarks of the work culture emanating from the Government Departments. It is, therefore, a welcome decision of the Government to issue directions for conducting cent percent physical verification of all the works, ongoing and already deemed to be completed works. Here, we would like to reiterate that unless these directions are taken to logical ends for implementation, no perceptible change in the entire scenario could be seen. Disciplinary action is what should be the result of wilful bypassing of rules and guidelines. One more thing which the inspecting and audit teams should ensure to verify is whether quality standards of the works were maintained and not merely complying with other formalities but compromising with quality for ”obvious ” reasons took place in any case. The concept of taking photographs of projects and works and treat those as conclusive proofs of the works having already been completed has certain drawbacks when compiled at higher administrative levels in that it would be difficult to conclusively prove which of the works was of which place and of which nature. To this, only an exhaustive inspection report built on recurring audits and inspections alone would suffice and meet the ends of proper verification. The entire exercise would be futile and rendered half baked if the report on irregularities and glaring deficiencies observed during the course of inspections and audits by the designated teams were not rectified within a stipulated time and a ”Rectification Certificate” duly signed jointly by the Head of the Department and his or her Deputy and sent to the Finance and General Administration Departments. Executing agencies and their connected departments must mandatorily provide all the requisite information and cooperation to the inspecting teams.
Follow our WhatsApp channel