Our readers have observed that a number of reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on the performance of various departments in the State, as per terms of reference, are far from being satisfactory. These reports have made deep and careful study of performance by the departments and after coming to the conclusion that many of the irregularities could have been averted if the concerned authorities had behaved more imaginatively. The report suggests some remedial measures that could be taken to set things right and to guide the departmental authorities for future action. These reports have been submitted to the State Legislature where the law makers discuss the findings and seek replies from the Government through the ministers or departments concerned. Principal Accountant General of J&K is the official representative of CAG in the State, and can use his powers to convey to the Public Accounts Committee of Legislature about irregularities for which it has referred a particular matter to the State Vigilance Organization.
The matter in instant case pertains to irregularities in implementation of Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) appears to be infuriated on the action of the Principal Accountant General, and as such controversy on the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the Accountant General has been brought into question by the PAC. In the course of this controversy, the PAC had raised three questions and sought answer from the Principal Accountant General. The three questions asked are (a) are they (PAG) competent to challenge the authority of the House to enact or amend law(s); (b) are they (PAG) competent to challenge the authority of the Government to frame or amend the Rules for the implementation of certain enacted laws, and (c) are they (PAG) competent to share its “Test Check” findings with the Vigilance Organization without finalizing the matter with the concerned department.
In its response to first two points, the PAG stated that the audit observations never questioned the wisdom or authority of the Legislature in the enactment of laws nor do they question the authority of the Government to frame or amend the laws for the implementation of certain Acts passed by the Legislature. But the Principal Accountant General of J&K has made it clear to the House Committee that they are not bound to seek any permission from the Government for referring the cases of corruption, embezzlement and loss of public property to the investigating agencies.
This makes us think that there are two different views at hand. While the House Committee is of the opinion that ultimate power rests with the elected representatives of the people, the Principal Accountant General, being the local representative of the CAG which is an autonomous statutory body has the powers to refer a case of corruption, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds etc. to the State Vigilance Organization for necessary action, particularly when the CAG is convinced by available evidence that a gross irregularity in the department has taken place. Actually the point is of irregularities in implementation of Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001, This notwithstanding, the House Committee would want to know whether the PAG is competent to share its “Test Check” findings with the Vigilance Organization without finalizing the matter with the concerned department.
As these are two contradictory standpoints, it is rather difficult for us to stand on judgment. At the best, legal luminaries will be able to reflect on the issue. However, we cannot ignore the point that rules should not contradict the very spirit of the law and in the case of Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, the rules have not been made in conformity of the Roshni Act aimed at supporting the power sector by way of revenue realization while conferring the proprietary rights to the illegal occupants of the State land. The PAG says that the Revenue Department has not given any convincing reply to the observations of the CAG, and this had necessitated reference to the SVO. However, the PAG has assured the House Committee of maintaining absolute secrecy in the matter. Further, the CAG follows the standard prescribed by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institution headquartered at Geneva followed by 190 member countries of the world. It also follows the Regulations on Audit and Accounts issued by CAG in 2007. These guidelines authorize the PAG to share an interim report (not the final reports) on the suspected cases with the vigilance agencies observing utmost confidentiality.
Follow our WhatsApp channel