Audit Report on the Accounts of Disaster Management Organizations Punjab Audit Year 2017-18

AUDIT REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS PUNJAB AUDIT YEAR 2017-18

AUDITOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...... i PREFACE ...... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... iv SUMMARY TABLES & CHARTS ...... 1 Table 1 Audit Work Statistics ...... 1 Table 2 Audit observations regarding Financial Management ...... 1 Table 3 Outcome Statistics ...... 2 Table 4 Table of Irregularities pointed out ...... 3 Table 5 Cost-Benefit ...... 3 Chapter-1 ...... 4 Provincial Disaster Management Authority(PDMA) - Punjab ...... 4 1.1 Introduction of Authority ...... 4 1.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis) ...... 4 1.3 Brief Comments on the Status of Compliance with PAC Directives ...... 5 1.4 AUDIT PARAS ...... 6 Chapter-2 ...... 18 District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs), Punjab ...... 18 2.1 Introduction of the Departments ...... 18 2.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis) ...... 18 2.3 Brief Comments on the Status of Compliance with PAC Directives ...... 19 2.4 AUDIT PARAS ...... 20 Chapter-3 ...... 25 Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue-1122) ...... 25 3.1 Introduction of the Departments ...... 25 3.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis) ...... 25 3.3 Brief Comments on the Status of Compliance with PAC Directives ...... 26 3.4 AUDIT PARAS ...... 27 Annexure-I (MAFDAC) ...... 44 Annexure-II to XVI...... 45

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS AC Assistant Commissioner ADP Annual Development Plan AGP Auditor General of Pakistan AGPR Accountant General Pakistan Revenue AIR Audit and Inspection Report BOR Board of Revenue CGA Controller General of Accounts CNIC Computerized National Identity Card DAC Departmental Accounts Committee DCO District Coordination Officer DDMA District Disaster Management Authority DDO Drawing & Disbursing Officer DEO District Emergency Officer DG Director General DGPR Director General Public Relations DM Disaster Management EOT Extension of Time ESA Emergency Service Academy FAM Financial Audit Manual FTR Federal Treasury Rules FY Financial Year INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards LD Liquidated Damages M/s Masers NDMA National Disaster Management Authority NDMP National Disaster Management Plan NGO Non-Government Organization OBM Out Boat Motor PAO Principal Accounting Officer PDMA Provincial Disaster Management Authority PDMC Provincial Disaster Management Commission PDMF Provincial Disaster Management Fund PDP Propose Draft Para PES Punjab Emergency Service PFR Punjab Financial Rule PITB Punjab Information Technology Board i

POL Petrol Oil Lubricant PPRA Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority PST Punjab Sales Tax SDA Special Drawing Account Qty. Quantity S&GAD Services and General Administration Department SMBR Senior Member Board of Revenue TPV Third Party Validation WHT Withholding Tax

PREFACE

Articles 169 & 170 (2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Sections 8 and 12 of the Auditor General (Functions, Powers and Terms and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2001, require the Auditor General of Pakistan to conduct audit of receipts and expenditure of the Federation and the Provinces or the accounts of any authority or body established by the Federation or a Province. The report is based on audit of the accounts of Disaster Management organizations of Government of the Punjab for the financial year 2016-17 and accounts of some formations for previous years. The Directorate General Audit (Disaster Management) conducted audit during the year2017-18 on test check basis with a view to reporting significant findings to the relevant stakeholders. The main body of the Audit Report includes only the systemic issues and as a general principle, attempt has been made to include audit findings having value of rupees one million or more. Relatively less significant issues are listed in the Annexure-I of the Audit Report. The audit observations listed in the Annexure-I shall be pursued with the Principal Accounting Officers at the DAC level and in all cases where the PAOs do not initiate appropriate action, the audit observations will be brought to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee through the next year’s Audit Report. Audit findings indicate the need for adherence to the regularity framework besides instituting and strengthening of internal controls to avoid recurrence of similar violations and irregularities. Audit observations in this report have been finalized in the light of discussions in the DAC meetings. The Audit Report is submitted to the Governor of the Punjab in pursuance of the Article 171 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, for causing it to be laid before the Provincial Assembly.

-sd- Dated: 20th February2018 [Javaid Jehangir] Auditor-General of Pakistan

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Directorate General Audit(Disaster Management) is mandated to conduct the audit of receipts and utilization of funds spent by Disaster Management Organizations of the Federal, Provincial as well as District Governments. The office conducts regularity audit, financial attest audit, compliance with authority audit,audit of sanctions and propriety and performance audit of ERRA, NDMA, DG Civil Defence, PDMAs, FDMA, DDMAs and Rescue-1122. The office is presently located at Islamabad with its one sub-office at Abbottabad. The Directorate General Audit(Disaster Management) has a human resource of 46 personnel with7,105 man-days available. The annual budget of the Directorate General Audit (DM)for the financial year 2017-18 isRs57.851 million. There are 03PAOsand 120 auditable formations. The list is given in Annexure-II. As per Audit Plan both expenditure and receipts of these formations were audited on test check basis by selecting 09 out of 120 formations during Audit Year 2017-18. a. Scope of audit Out of a total expenditure of Rs 3,547.098 million (PDMA Rs 1,082.375, DDMA Sialkot Rs 19.426 million, DDMA Gujranwala Rs 9.529 million, Rescue- 1122 Headquarter Rs 463.747 million, Emergency Service Academy, Lahore Rs 331.174 million and 4 DEOs Rescue-1122 Rs 1640.847 million) of Provincial Disaster Management Organizations, the DG Audit, Disaster Management audited an expenditure of Rs 701.231 million which in terms of percentage is 20% of auditable expenditure.The audit covered issues of propriety, efficiency and economy in public spending. b. Recoveries at the instance of audit Recoveries of Rs52.933millionwere pointed out by audit, out of which recovery of Rs 2.691 million was affected during the financial year 2017-18 at the time of compilation of this report. All the recoveries were not in the notice of the Executive before audit.

c. Audit Methodology The Audit Year 2017-18 witnessed intensive application of desk audit techniques which included examining permanent files, computer generated data and other relevant documents along with the policies and rules followed by Auditee. Risk assessment was carried out by performing analytical procedures and reviewing internal controls. Desk review helped auditors in understanding the systems, procedures and environment of the audited entity and identification of high risk areas for substantive testing. The audit was conducted in accordance with the INTOSAI Auditing Standards as envisaged in Financial Audit Manual (FAM) and the International Standards on Auditing. The overall objective of the audit was to assess compliance with financial rules and adequacy of internal controls. The audit also included review of record, field visit and discussion with management along with analysis and comments on various policies of auditee. d. Audit Impact On pointation of audit, the Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue-1122) agreed to establish internal audit wing to carry out internal audit functions as well as devising medicine inventory management system on First Expired First Out (FEFO) basis. The DAC decided to revise the notification regarding standardization so that PDMA has to carry out the standardization of only notified items. e. Comments on Internal Control and Internal Audit Department The organizations have Internal Controls in place but the same needs improvement. There is no internal audit wing in the departments which needs to be established as agreed on pointation of audit.

f. Key audit findings of the report i. Irregular payments/violation of rules was observed in 13 cases involving Rs1260.602million.1 ii. Recoveries were pointed out in 9 cases amounting to Rs 52.933 million.2 iii. Lack of internal control was observed in 3 cases Rs 70.776 million.3 g. Recommendations It is recommended that PAO should take necessary steps to evaluate the financial management systems in order to strengthen and institutionalize internal controls. Audit recommends that: i. Irregular/un-authorized payments should be regularized or recovered from the responsible as decided in the DAC. ii. Internal Controls should be strengthened and internal audit to be conducted on a regular basis. The internal audit report needs to be shared with Audit. iii. The asset management and inventory control system needs to be made effective through continuous monitoring. iv. The Punjab PPRA rules need to be followed in letter and spirit by ensuring competition in order to benefit the departments while making procurements. v. Reconciliation of expenditure is mostly neglected; the same needs to be done regularly along with timely surrender of unspent balances. vi. Inquiries ordered by DAC should be completed in time and their findings need to be shared with audit. vii. Contractual obligations may be observed in letter and spirit.

1 Para 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.9, 1.4.11, 2.4.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.5, 3.4.8, 3.4.14, 3.4.15 2 Para 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.15, 1.4.16, 2.4.4, 3.4.6, 3.4.10, 3.4.11, 3.4.12, 3 Para 1.4.3, 2.4.6, 2.4.7

SUMMARY TABLES & CHARTS

Table 1 Audit Work Statistics (Rs in million) S. No. Description No. Budget 1 Total Entities (Ministries/PAO’s) in Audit 03 8,434.543 Jurisdiction 2 Total formations in audit jurisdiction 120 8,434.543 3 Total Entities(Ministries/PAO’s) Audited 02 6,085.470 4 Total formations Audited 09 6,085.470 5 Audit & Inspection Reports 09 6,085.470 6 Special Audit Reports - - 7 Performance Audit Reports - - 8 Other Reports - - .

Table 2 Audit observations regarding Financial Management

S. No. Description (Areas) Amount Placed under Audit Observation (Rs in Millions) 1 Asset management 107.788 2 Financial management (specific) 597.608 3 Internal controls relating to financial - management 4 Others 810.167 Total 1515.563

Table 3 Outcome Statistics

(Rs in million) S.No. Description Expenditure Civil Receipts Others Total Total last on Acquiring Works current year Physical year Assets (Procurement) 1 Outlays - - - - 5,912.752 24,593.628 Audited 2 Amount 301.362 - - 1214.201 1515.563 690.015 Placed under Audit Observations /Irregularities of Audit 3 Recoveries - - - 52.933 53.832 82.765 Pointed Out at the instance of Audit 4 Recoveries ------Accepted /Established at the instance of Audit 5 Recoveries ------Realized at the instance of Audit

Table 4 Table of Irregularities pointed out (Rs in million) S.No. Description Amount Placed under Audit Observation 1 Violation of rules and regulations, violation of 1,260.602 principle of propriety and probity in public operations. 2 Reported cases of fraud, embezzlement, thefts and - misuse of public resources. 3 Accounting errors (accounting policy departure from IPSAS, misclassification, over or understatement of account balances) that are significant but are not - material enough to result in the qualification of audit opinions on the financial statements. 4 If possible quantify weaknesses of internal control 70.776 systems. 5 Recoveries and overpayments, representing cases of 52.933 establishment overpayment or misappropriations of public money 6 Non–production of record. - 7 Others, including cases of accidents, negligence etc. 131.252

Table 5 Cost-Benefit

S. No. Description Amount (in million) 1 Outlays Audited (Items 1 of Table 3) 5,912.752 2 Expenditure on Audit 5.124 3 Recoveries realized at the instance of 2.691 Audit Cost-Benefit Ratio 1:0.525

Chapter-1 Provincial Disaster Management Authority(PDMA) - Punjab

1.1 Introduction of Authority The Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) is constituted under the NDM Act (National Disaster Management Act) in 2010. PDMA specializes in mitigation, preparedness and an organized response to a disaster. PDMA also acts as the coordinating authority, which articulates the coordination mechanism between key provincial departments. In case of emergencies, the PDMA works closely with District Governments to organize initial and subsequent assessment of disaster- affected areas and determine the course of action to ensure long-term rehabilitation of the affected population. 1.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis) (Rs in million)

Sr. Financial Year Budget Allocation Expenditure Saving No. (Rs) (Rs) 1 2016-17 1,684.034 1,082.376 601.658

Rs in Million

2,000.00

1,500.00

1,000.00

500.00

0.00 Variance Analysis

Budget Expenditure

The difference between fund released and expenditure was due to non- surrender of Rs 601.658 million.

1.3 Brief Comments on the Status of Compliance with PAC Directives No PAC directives have been issued as this Directorate General conducted audit of Disaster Management organizations of Punjab during the year 2016-17 for the first time and the Audit Report generated by this office has not yet been discussed in the PAC.

1.4 AUDIT PARAS Irregularity & Non Compliance 1.4.1 Irregularities in procurement of Hybrid Satellite Tracking Devices – Rs 107.788 million Rule 32 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 states that all bids shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria and other terms and conditions set forth in the prescribed bidding document. The PDMA Punjab awarded the contract for purchase of Satellite based boats tracking systems amounting to Rs 107.788 million to M/s Assetlink Asia. Audit found that procurement of 1,390 devices was made without involving technical expert as co-opted members in the technical evaluation committee / purchase committee to check the technical soundness of the firm and the quality and conformity of specifications. The department paid an amount of Rs 85.485 million including annual monitoring charging of Rs 13.900 million to the firm till June 2017 without completion of work. Furthermore390 devices out of 1,390 were procured on 04.11.2016 just after ending of flood season. Audit is of the view that procurement of technical equipment without including technical members for technical evaluation as required under single stage two envelope procurements is irregular. Moreover, payment was made before completion of contract. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017.Department replied that inclusion of co-members was not mandatory and the bid is signed by the end user i.e. Rescue- 1122.Further, all the procurement was made timely and completion certificate is available on web portal. The reply is not acceptable because inclusion of technical expertise from other departments was necessary to evaluate technical soundness of the bidders. In DAC meeting held on 25th January, 2018 DAC decided that record is to be verified before settling the Para.

Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-89 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.2 Irregular award of contract to2ndlowest bidder –Rs17.064 million As per rule 2.33 of PFR Vol-I, “every Government servant should realize fully and clearly that he would be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part or to the extent he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. The PDMA Punjab hired services of M/s SGS for third party validation of goods/equipment purchased by the departmental in pursuance of S&GAD department letter No. PS/AS(G) 803/2016 dated 20th June, 2016. Audit observed that M/s Grant Thornton obtained highest marks in technical evaluation and offered lowest rates butits bid was rejected on the plea that rates are not conforming to tender requirement and are without lab tests whereas in the tender notice and tender documents no such clause was mentioned by the department andthe lowest bidder also clearly mentioned on the bid that the total costs are inclusive of taxes, duties, fees and other impositions. Audit is of the view that due to rejection of lowest bid government sustained a loss of Rs 17.064 million. The detail is given in Annexure-III. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017.Department replied that all the goods/equipment procured involved Lab tests and the bidder gave consent in written on financial bid that no Lab tests will be conducted on these rates which was against the spirit of TPV. The reply is not acceptable as laboratory tests were not mentioned in the bidding documents and 2nd lowest bidder also quoted rates without Lab test. In DAC meeting held on 25th January, 2018, DAC decided to verify the record and the minutes of the meeting for evaluating the justification of awarding the contract to the second lowest. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-90 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab)

1.4.3 Loss to Government due to increase in sample size – Rs13.923million As per contract agreement of third party validation the firm shall carry out 5% TPV of food hampers procured by PDMA for Monsoon / Flood season 2016. The Director General, PDMA, Punjab procured 37,500 Nos. of food hampers from various vendors during the financial year 2016-17 and made payment of Rs14.823 million vide cheque No. 692865 dated 26th December, 2016 to M/s GAT for consultancy as third party validation during the financial year 2016-17. The payment record revealed that firm carried out 82% TPV that was more than the agreed scope of work i.e. 5% which resulted in loss to the government. The necessary detail is given below:

Food TPV Sample size Rate of TPV Amount to Total Excess Hampers carried by @5% required per Food be Amount Amount(Rs) Procured GAT as per Hamper paid(Rs) Paid(Rs) agreement (Rs) 1 2 3 4 5=(3*4) 6 7=(6-5) 37,500 30,882 1,875 480 900,000 14,823,360 13,923,360 Audit is of the view that the increase in sample size for third party validation (TPV) of food hampers reflects upon weak internal control as the sample size was increased to extend undue favour andto increase the consultancy fee of the firm which resulted in loss to the government. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017.Department replied that the TORs for TPV clearly indicates verification of both quality and quantity.M/s GAT was paid for 100% third party validation of quantity and 5% sample for quality of the lot therefore validating the complete lot as per TORs. The reply is not acceptable. As per contract agreement, only 5% TPV of food hampers was to be carried out and payment was to be made accordingly. In DAC meeting held on 25th January, 2018 DAC settled the para subject to verification of record. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-91 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab)

1.4.4 Award of contract to ineligible firm– Rs 98.707 million As per rule 4 of Punjab Procurement Rules 2014, a procuring agency, while making any procurement, shall ensure that the procurement is made in a fair and transparent manner.As per clause 2.1 to 2.4 of tender documents, audited financial statements for last three financial years, projects of similar nature of minimum value of 40 million or more completed in last two years, projects of similar nature of minimum value of 50 million or more in hand and detail of personal capabilities of staff was as major evaluation criteria of the bidder. The PDMA Punjab, Lahore awarded contract to M/s Supertekfor Installation of Inventory Management, Monitoring & Bio metric system, revamping of data center with centralized connectivity and made payment of Rs 98.707 million during the financial year 2016-17. The scrutiny of bid documents revealed that contract was awarded in non- transparent manners as theaudited financial statements of last 3 financial years were not provided by the firm to verify the average annual turnover for the last 3 years i.e. 100 million or above. Moreover, as required in the bid documents, the firm did not completeany Projects of similar nature of minimum value of Rs 40 million or more in last 2 years. Though a list of Projects of similar nature of minimum value of Rs 50 million or more in hand were provided but without any documentary evidence. Furthermore, specifications were standardized by Standardization & Technical Committee constituted by Senior Member Board of Revenue (SMBR)without co- opting technical members. The payment of Rs 98.707 million was made without work completion report duly signed from technical personnel. Third party validation as directed by the Chief Minister was not carried out. Audit is of the view that award of contract ignoring financial and technical soundness of the firm along with non-convening standardization and technical evaluation committee meeting is held irregular. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017.Department replied that audited financial statements were not mandatory for private limited firms. Experience record as required is available. Further, inclusion of co-members was not mandatory,

9 completion certificate / technical assessment was carried out. TPV was carried out by PITBand BOR. The reply is not acceptable as the technical evaluation was not carried out as per criteria laid down in the bidding documents. In DAC meeting held on 25th January, 2018 DAC decided to probe into the technical evaluation of the firms and share the outcome with Audit as the technical evaluation process needs improvement. Audit recommendsimplementation of DAC decision.

PDP-92 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.5 Purchase of substandard tents – Rs 89.00 million As per rule 4 of Punjab Procurement Rules 2014, a procuring agency, while making any procurement, shall ensure that the procurement is made in a fair and transparent manner, the object of procurement brings value for money to the procuring agency and the procurement process is efficient and economical. The management of PDMA incurred expenditure of Rs 89.00 million on account of purchase of 10,000 tents from M/s Usman Traders during the financial year 2016-17. Audit observed that substandard tents were purchased from M/s Usman Traders as evident from the following points: i. During third party validation, the overall result of the inspection was found as “Not Conforming.” ii. The bids of 13 firms were rejected due to water leakage found in sample test as zero tolerance was allowed. The results of M/s Usman Traders showed same results (ranging from 26 to 42 out of 50) in third party validation but their lot was not rejected and bid was not cancelled. iii. The monsoon / flood season span is from 15th of June to 15th of October whereas the firm supplied the tents on 07 and 08October, 2016 just one week before ending of monsoon season.

iv. M/s ZRR lodged a complaint about award of contract on high rates and in non-transparent manner to M/s Usman trader but its complaint was not investigated by the redressal grievances committee as per rule PPR 67. Audit is of the view that non-cancellation of contract and receipt of substandard tents at the end of monsoon season shows undue favour to the contractor in violation of procurement rules. Audit pointed out the matter in August, 2017.Department replied that PDMA decided on quality of material on report of TPV. According to Lab. test reports only one bidder qualified test and parameters.Further, as per leading NGOs operating in Pakistan the acceptable value is 20cm to 30cm. supplier asked for inspection in time, however, department lifted the stock late after a thorough inspection. All substandard tents below sample has been replaced and contractor has been penalized for Rs.7.90 million. The reply is unacceptable as the TPV reportsays that the water leakage was observed at 20cm to 30cm and at this range, the sample of other bidders was rejected. DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directedverification of record of imposed penalty of Rs 7.900 million and replacement of all substandard tents. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-93 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.6 Non-imposition of liquidated damages - Rs 19.835million As per Terms & Conditions of the Contract (liquidated damages), the competent authority reserves the right to impose liquidated damages @ 0.25 % per day up to 10% of the Contract value for performance of the contract or performance of the contract beyond agreed/stipulated time. The management of PDMA, Punjab made procurement of relief goods / equipment. As the goods and equipment were intended to be procured for flood season therefore, in time supply was the core essence of the contract. The work orders were served with clear direction that the items will be supplied as per schedule time. But record showed that supplies received with a delay ranging from 2 days to 83 days

11 from various contractors. However, liquidated damages were not imposed from any contractor. The detail is given in Annexure-IV. Audit is of the view that undue favour was extended to the suppliers by not imposing liquidated damages, which resulted in a loss of Rs 19.835 million. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017.Department replied that an amount of Rs 192,800 has been recovered from M/s Solution Link. Letters have been written to M/s Flowpak Pumps and M/s Maestro Solutions for depositing amount of liquidated damages. LD on remaining vendors does not apply. In DAC meeting held on 25th January, 2018 the DAC directed to verify the recovery made from M/s Solution Link and impose recovery on M/s FlowPak pumps, M/s BET and M/s Usman Traders and verify the EOT granted to M/s Motor House and M/s Logistics Associates. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-95 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.7 Overpayment on account of packing charges – Rs 2.895 million As per rules 2.33 of PFR Vol-I, “every Government servant should realize fully and clearly that he would be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part or to the extent he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. The management of PDMA Punjab procured 37,500 food hampers @ Rs 2,413 during financial year 2016-17. Audit noticed that department made overpayment of Rs 2.895 million to the contractor on account of packing charges as the department supplied the Polypropylene bags to suppliers of food hamper for packing purposes but the firm also charged the cost of Polypropylene bag which resulted overpayment of Rs 2.895 million (37,500 food hamper x Rs 77.20 cost of one Polypropylene bag) to the contractor on account of packing of food hamper. Audit is of the view that overpayment to suppliers is undue favour and shows weak financial control of the department.

Thematter was pointed outin August, 2017.Department replied that the rate was inclusive of packing material for packing of different components and not the outer carton/box. The department supplied branded packing bag separately in which all components werepacked to give final shape to the food hamper. The reply is not acceptable as the vendor quoted rate including Polypropylene bag, therefore, issuance of bag by the department resulted in overpayment. DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directed to recover the amount. Audit recommendsto recover the amount from the responsibles.

PDP-97 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.8 Irregular expenditure on account of transportation of goods without pre- qualifying firms– Rs28.569 million As per rule 12(2) of PPRA 2014, any procurement exceeding two million rupees shall be advertised on the website of the Authority, the website of the procuring agency, if any, and in at least two national daily newspapers of wide circulation, one in English and one in Urdu. The management of PDMA Punjab made payment of Rs 28.569 million on account of transportation charges during the financial year 2016-17. Audit observed that the department did not pre-qualify the transport firms for the financial year 2016-17.The contract agreement with M/s Ashraf Munir Goods and M/s Pak Karmanwala Goods Transport Co. was extended on the plea that PDMA has not enough time to observe the normal procedure of PPRA. Audit is of the view that expenditure incurred in violation of procurement rules is irregular and the department has given undue favour to the contractors by non-advertising the procurement of services. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017.Department replied that it was informed to PDMA that summer monsoon rainfall was likely to be much above normal. To expedite actions on preemptive measure and to avoid loss of lives the existing contract was extended.

The reply is not acceptable, as the department did not prequalify transport firms in time for transportation of relief goods/equipment. DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directed for annual contract of transportation of goods in order to streamline the process and compliance to be verified. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-99 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.9 Non deduction of Punjab Sales Tax – Rs 7.055 million A withholding agent shall deduct amount of Punjab Sales Tax on providing taxable services at the rate prescribed in second schedule of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012. Management of PDMA Punjab made payments to different vendors for providing taxable services on account of inland carriage of relief goods / equipment, consultancy services provided by the consultants. Audit observed that the amount of Punjab Sales Tax was not deducted at sources while making payments to contractors/consultants. Detail is given below: S. No. Description Amount (Rs) 1 Payment made to M/s Ashraf Munir Goods Transport Co. 4,479,554 2 Payment made on account of consultancy services 2,576,071 Total 7,055,625

Audit is of the view that Punjab Sales Tax on services was required to be deducted before making payment to the service providers which resulted overpayment and needs to be recovered. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017.Department replied that letters have been issued to all concerned fordepositing the amount in the government treasury. DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directed that the recovery is to be made and verified by Audit. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision. PDP 96 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab)

1.4.10 Non deduction of Income Tax and GST – Rs 0.538million As per Section 153 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 withholding tax @ 4.5% is required to be deducted on all supplies made from registered firms.Further, according to Section (3) (1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 as amended from time to time, there shall be charged, levied and paid a tax known as sales tax at the rate of 17% of the value of supplies. Management of PDMA Punjab incurred expenditure on account of procurement of food hamper, tents and satellite based tracking system during the financial year 2016-17. Audit observed thatpayments were made either without deduction of income tax and sales tax or deducted less amount. The detail is provided in Annexure-V. Audit is of the view that the non-deduction of income taxand GST before making payment is violation of above stated rules showing weak financial controls. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. Department replied that the tax has been deducted on the amount actually spenton account of purchase of food hampers and tents. The amount of penalty imposed has been retained, in case, if the amount of penalty imposed is paid to the contractor then the tax chargeable will be deducted and deposited. The reply is not acceptable. The amount of tax was to be deducted on gross amount on account of purchase of food hampers and tents. In DAC meeting held on 25th January, 2018 department conceded. Recovery is to be made and verified by audit. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP 104 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.11 Non-imposition of duty as levied under Stamp Act– Rs2.064 million Section 22(A)(b) of Schedule-I of Stamp Act 1899 read with Finance Act 1995 (Act-VI of 1995) provides that Government of the Punjab has levied the stamp duty on the contracts entered into for procurement of stores and materials by a contractor with Government, Agencies or Organizations set up or controlled by the

15 provincial government at the rate of 25 paisa for every one hundred rupees or part thereof of the amount of contract. PDMA Punjab Lahoreissued work orders for procurement of stores and material as per detail in Annexure-VIbut stamp duty prescribed at the above mentioned rate was not recovered and the government sustained a loss of Rs 2.064 million. Audit is of the view that non-recovery of stamp duty as required under Stamp Act is a violation of the act and recovery is required to be made from the concerned. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017. Department replied that an amount of Rs 1.175 million has been recovered. Letters to the remaining vendors have been issued for depositing amount of stamp duty. DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directed that recovery be made and verified by audit. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-110 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) 1.4.12 Excess payment on account of third party validation – Rs1.395 million As per S&GA department letter No. PS/AS (G) 803/2016 dated 20th June, 2016; third party validation (TPV) of the procurement made by PDMAwas to be carried@ 30% of rescue and relief equipment / machinery, 100%of blankets, tents and 5% TPV of food hampers etc. The PDMA Punjab hired services of M/s SGS for third party validation of rescue and relief equipment, tents, blankets. As per contract agreement the third party validation was to be carried out 30% of the total quantity procured,but the firm carried out in excess of its agreed scope of work and payment was made accordingly. The detail is given in Annexure-VII. Audit is of the view that payment made in excess of approved scope of work is irregular and resulted in loss to Government exchequer.

The matter was pointed outin August, 2017. Department replied that TPV was carried out as per defined scope of work and no deviation was made as the TPV of already available stocks and fresh procurement was made at same store. Reply is not acceptable. As per contract agreement, the third party validation was to be carried out 30% of the total quantity procured. DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directed record verification. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-111 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab) Internal Control Weaknesses 1.4.13 Non surrender of funds - Rs 597.608 million The Head of Department should submit to the Finance Department, the first statement of excess and surrenders by 1st January and 2nd statement of excess and surrender by 31stMarch as per para 14.3 of Punjab budget Manual. Audit observed that a sum of Rs597.608 million for the financial year 2016-17 was not surrendered timely to the Finance Department. Non surrender of funds shows poor financial management and budgetary control. If the funds were timely surrendered these could have been utilized for some other needs. The detail is given inAnnexure-VIII. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017. Department replied that PDMA deals with floods and other emergencies. Funds were not surrendered to cater for any emergent nature expenditure of relief and rescue operation till last hour of 30th June. Reply is not acceptable as the funds were to be surrendered in time. PDMA should establish Provincial Disaster Management Fund to cater emergencies. The DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 directed that the amount has to be surrendered in time and for emergency the PDMA fund, on lines of NDMA and ERRA fund, is to be made functional. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-100 (2016-17, PDMA-Punjab)

Chapter-2

District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs), Punjab

2.1 Introduction of the Departments The District Disaster Management Authorities were established under the National Disaster Management Act in 2010 in each District of the Punjab. The District Authority is responsible for the District planning coordinating and implementing body for disaster management in the District in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the National/ Provincial Authority. 2.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis)

(Rs in million)

Sr. Formation Financial Funds Expenditure Saving No. Year Released (Rs) (Rs) 1 DDMA, Sialkot 2016-17 20.000 19.426 0.574 2 DDMA, Gujranwala 2016-17 10.000 9.529 0.471 1.045

Rs in Million 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sialkot Gujranwala

Budget Expenditure

The difference between fund released and expenditure was due to non- utilization of Rs 1.045 million.

2.3 Brief Comments on the Status of Compliance with PAC Directives This Directorate General conducted audit of Disaster Management organizations of Punjab during the year 2016-17 for the first time and the Audit Report generated by this office has not yet discussed in PAC.

2.4 AUDIT PARAS Irregularity & Non Compliance 2.4.1 Misappropriation of food hampers – Rs14.478 million As per rule 2.33 of PFR Vol-I, “every Government servant should realize fully and clearly that he would be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part. Audit observed that PDMA-Punjab forwarded 6,000 food hampers to District Coordination Officer, Gujranwala. The detail is as under:

Qty. dispatched Amount S. No. Dispatch letter Date Rate (Rs) by PDMA (Rs) 1 317-2016/434/B-1 01.08.2016 1,000 2,413 2,413,000 2 317-2016/445/B-I 02.08.2016 2,000 2,413 4,826,000 3 317-2016/479/B-I 10.08.2016 3,000 2,413 7,239,000 14,478,000

Audit observed that food hampers were not taken on charge by DDMA Gujranwala and no record found about the receipt of these items which resulted in loss to government. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017 but no reply was received. The DAC was held on 25th January, 2018 however, representative from DDMA, Gujranwala did not attend the DAC meeting. Audit recommends that the matter may be inquired to fix responsibility against the personsat fault.

PDP 157 (2015-16, DDMA Gujranwala) 2.4.2 Irregular procurement of relief equipment in violation of Finance Department instructions –Rs5.867 million According to Finance Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore UO No. (R&E/PPB) 8-1/2016 dated 28th July, 2016, the expenditure may be incurred after completion of all codal / legal / statutory requirements and the funds may not be

20 utilized for purchase of durable goods, purchase of vehicle and construction / repair of buildings / roads. Audit observed that the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala made procurement of durable goods for Rs 5.867 millionout of funds provided by the Finance Department for relief and rescue operation during the financial year 2016-17. The detail of procurement is given atAnnexure-IX. Moreover, procurement was made without approving/standardizing items by the standardization committee duly constituted by Relief Commissioner / SMBR. Audit is of the view that procurement in violation of Finance Department instruction and procurement rules is irregular. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017 but no reply was received. The DAC meeting was held on 25th January, 2018 however, representative from DDMA, Gujranwala did not attend the DAC meeting. Audit recommends that matter may be examined to fix responsibility.

PDP 158 (2015-16, DDMA Gujranwala) 2.4.3 Non deduction of income tax and GST – Rs 1.351 million As per Section 153 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 withholding tax @ 4.5% is required to be deducted on all supplies made from registered firms. As per Section (3) (1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 as amended from time to time, there shall be charged, levied and paid a tax known as sales tax at the rate of 17% of the value of supplies. The Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala made procurement of various relief items from various suppliers as listed below and made payment of Rs 7.387 millionwithout deduction of Income Tax and General Sales Tax for Rs 1.351 million during the financial year 2016-17. The detail is given in Annexure-X. Audit is of the view that the amount of Income Tax and GST on procurement was required to be deducted before making the payment. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017 but no reply was received.

The DAC was held on 25th January, 2018 however, representative from DDMA, Gujranwala did not attend the DAC meeting. Audit recommends that the recovery may be made from the concerned and deposited into Government treasury under intimation to Audit.

PDP 159 (2015-16, DDMA Gujranwala)

Internal Control Weaknesses 2.4.4 Loss to Government due to non-distribution of relief items – Rs 4.519 million As per rules 2.33 of PFR Vol-I, “every Government servant should realize fully and clearly that he would be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part or to the extent he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. DDMA Sialkot received different food/non-food items for distribution among flood affectees, out of which some quantity was not distributed and balance is still reflected on stock register. The detail of items not issued is as under:

Date Food Item Unit Qty. Qty. Balance Rate Amount (Rs) received issued available (Rs) by DDMA 12.08.2016 Food Hampers No. 5,000 3,500 1,500 2,413 3,619,500 Bags 01.07.2014 Rice N/A N/A 180 100 900,000 (50kg) Carton 30.06.2016 Dates 108 43 65 (10x1kg) 01.07.2014 Surf Carton 200 Nil 260

01.07.2014 Soap Carton 60 Nil

Total (Rs) 4,519,500 Audit is of the view that the expiry period and shelf life of food items is upto one year. The department did not inform the PDMA about the leftover relief items (perishable) or return to PDMA for its utilization at some other needed district.This resulted into loss to public exchequer as these items are no more consumable condition.

The matter was pointed outin August, 2017.Department replied that 1500 food hampers and 180 rice bags are available in stock and DC Sialkot requested the PDMA for return / disposal of food hampers etc. Reply is not acceptable because proof of correspondence with PDMA was not provided in which DDMA Sialkot requested PDMA to return the items. The DAC in its meeting held on 25th January, 2018 observed that non distributed relief items expire / become non useable. The same cannot be sent back to PDMA due to transportation cost and lesser shelf life therefore a system has to be devised and approved by the competent authority so that the non-distributed relief items nearing expiry can be distributed to the deserving people under the supervision of a notified committee. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP 153 (2015-16, DDMA Sialkot) 2.4.5 Loss of items due to difference between items dispatched by PDMA and items received at DDMA – Rs 50.939 million As per rule 2.33 of PFR Vol-I, “every Government servant should realize fully and clearly that he would be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part or to the extent he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. Audit observed that PDMA Punjab dispatched different relief goods to DDMA Sialkot for onward distribution to flood affectees. The stock register of the DDMA and the details obtained from PDMA were compared and it was found that most of the stock dispatched by the PDMA has not been taken on charge which reflects that stock has been misappropriated. The detail is given in Annexure-XI. Audit is of the view that the items sent by PDMA and not taken on charge by the DDMA raise serious concerns and may result into loss to government exchequer. The matter was pointed outin August, 2017. Department replied that the relevant copies of the stock register of the rescue 1122 and DC Sialkot are enclosed for perusal and original record of stock / store will be shown in the next audit.

Reply is not acceptable because item wise reconciliation, dispatched by PDMA received by DDMA and further issuance to the quarter concerned along with documentary evidencewas not provided. The DAC was held on 25th January, 2018. DACdirected that record to be verified. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP 154 (2015-16, DDMA Sialkot)

Chapter-3

Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue-1122)

3.1 Introduction of the Departments The Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) was established under the Punjab Emergency Service Act, 2006 for professional management of emergencies such as road traffic accident, building collapse, hazardous material incident, fires and disasters. The mission of the department is “Development of Safer Communities through establishment of an effective system for Emergency Preparedness, Response and Prevention” and the objective is “Establishment of an emergency service for the purpose of maintaining a state of preparedness to deal with emergencies. To provide timely response, rescue and emergency medical treatment to the persons affected by emergencies and recommending measures to be taken by related organization to avoid emergencies.” 3.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis)

(Rs in Million) Sr. Name of Formation F.Y Budget Exp. Diff. No 1. Rescue 1122 (HQ), Lahore 2016-17 2235.845 463.747 1772.098 2. Emergency Service Academy 2016-17 356.512 331.174 25.338 3. DEO Rescue 1122, Rawalpindi 2016-17 204.965 199.388 5.577 4. DEO Rescue 1122, Gujranwala 2016-17 160.431 158.86 1.571 5. DEO Rescue 1122, Multan 2016-17 168.683 173.593 -4.91 6. DEO Rescue 1122, DG Khan 2016-17 130.345 127.847 2.498 Total 4844.732 2565.939 2278.793

Rs in Million 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Budget Expenditure

The difference between fund released and expenditureincurred was due to non-surrendering of Rs. 2278.793 million. 3.3 Brief Comments on the Status of Compliance with PAC Directives This Directorate General conducted audit of Disaster Management organizations of Punjab during the year 2016-17 for the first time and the Audit Report generated by this office has not yet been discussed in PAC.

3.4 AUDIT PARAS Irregularity & Non Compliance 3.4.1 Undue favour to contractor due to non- renewal of bank guarantee - Rs 97.600 million

As per clause No. 05 of supply order by Rescue 1122 to M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. “100% advance payment amounting to Rs 97.600 million shall be made to M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. against bank guarantee of equivalent amount which should be valid till the delivery period. Management of Rescue 1122 made payment of Rs 94.519 million on 10th April, 2017 through cheque No. 2898216. M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. provided the bank guarantee of Habib Bank Ltd for an amount of Rs 97.600 million dated 8th February, 2017. The date of expiry of bank guarantee was 30th June, 2017. M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. provided only 400 motorcycle up-to 8th August, 2017 and remaining 400 motorbikes were yet to be provided by the firm. It was observed that due to expired guarantee public exchequer amounting to Rs. 48.800 million is on risk. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. is the old supplier of vehicles to the Punjab Emergency Service and they provided the bank guarantee of the required amount. M/s Atlas Honda was asked to deliver 200 motorbikes to the fabricator and 200 more were added later on. Whereas, the M/s Atlas Honda was asked to retain the remaining 400 motorbikes due to non-availability of space at store of the Punjab Emergency Service. The reply is not tenable as the department did not ask contractor to provide valid bank guarantee and the contractor is yet to provide 400 motorcycles worth Rs 44.800 million. In the DAC meeting held on 2ndJanuary, 2018, DAC settled the para subject to verification of complete supply.

Audit recommends that record showing complete supply may be got verified from audit.

PDP 119 (Rescue 1122 (HQ),Lhr) 3.4.2 Funds expended in excess of budget allocation – Rs 85.127 million According to Govt. Rules vide para 17.15 of Punjab Financial Rules Vol-1, no Government servant may, without previously obtain an extra appropriation, incur expenditure in excess of the amount provided for expenditure under the heads concerned, and when a Government servant exceeds the annual appropriation he may be held responsible for the excess. District Emergency Officer (DEO) Gujranwala incurred expenditure in certain head of accounts in excess of appropriation made by the Government. The detail of amount incurred in excess during the financial years (2008-09 to 2016-17) is given below:

S. No. Financial Year Budget Expenditure Difference 1 2008-09 12,463,278 38,887,953 (28,099,713) 2 2012-13 89,550,061 101,263,029 (20,021,373) 3 2013-14 113,720,000 113,173,304 (1,093,068) 4 2014-15 117,270,100 114,590,265 (478,765) 5 2015-16 143,188,000 144,877,999 (4,838,525) 6 2016-17 130,721,000 158,860,643 (30,595,501) Total (85,126,945) Audit is of the view that utilization of funds in excess of appropriation may either be due to non-prudent use of money or demanding budget in accordance with the requirement. This may result into compromise on the effective and efficient operation of the organization unless the factual reasons are analyzed and corrective actions are taken to improve the process. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that the excess utilization of funds is in salary related expenses. Moreover,new recruitments on large scales have been made. However, this office will remain more vigilant in demand of funds in employee related heads of accounts. The reply is not acceptable asexcess expenditure is also in heads other than salary.

In the DAC meeting held on 2ndJanuary, 2018, DAC settled the para subject to produce the reconciled statement of budget and expenditure. Audit recommends that reconciled statement of budget and expenditure may be provided to audit. PDP-138 (DEO Rescue 1122, GRW) 3.4.3 Loss due to mis-procurement of latex examination gloves –Rs 1.176 million As per rule 12(2) of Punjab Procurement Rule 2014, any procurement exceeding two million rupees shall be advertised on the website of the Authority, the website of the procuring agency, if any, and in at least two national daily newspapers of wide circulation, one in English and one in Urdu. Rescue 1122 Headquarter, Lahore invited tender for purchase of latex examination gloves during the financial year 2016-17 and the same was cancelled due to single complying bid. The rate quoted by the only participated bidder i.e. M/s Zulfiqar Ali & Company was Rs 399 per glove. Later on the department procured 21,000 Latex Examination Gloves@ Rs 455 directly from M/s The Vital Enterpriseswithout open tendering and contractor supplied the said item at the given rate and was paid Rs 9.555 million.This resulted into loss of Rs 1.176 million. The detail is as under:

Name of bidder Rate per Amount Remarks S. No. Description Quantity unit (Rs) M/s Zulfiqar Ali & Latex Examination Open tender 1 21,000 399 8,379,000 Company Gloves large M/s The Vital Latex Examination Directly 2 21,000 455 9,555,000 Enterprises, Lahore Gloves large purchased Difference (Loss) 1,176,000 Audit is of the view that the department made procurement at higher rate which resulted loss to government. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that the PES entered into the procurement of Latex Examination Gloves through an open tender. The purchase committee recommended to cancel the procurement of Disposable Examination Gloves due to single complying bid.On urgent requirement

29 of 21,000 boxes, the market survey was conducted and the lowest rate of M/s Vital Enterprises offered to the office of the District Officer Health,Jhang through rate contract was approved. The reply is not tenable as rates were neither compared with service hospital Lahore nor with the rates quoted by single bidder. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC ordered inquiry to be conducted for fixing the responsibility as procurement made on rate contract resulted in a loss of Rs 1.176 million. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-128 (Rescue 1122 (HQ),Lhr) 3.4.4 Irregular expenditure on account of POL, repair and maintenanceof vehicles not delivered - Rs 4.390 million As per PC-I “Strengthening of Emergency Service Academy, Lahore” provision of rescue vehicles and general vehicles were provided for emergency service academy. The department incurred expenditure Rs 4.390 million on account of POL and repair of transport during financial year 2016-17 and charged the expenditure to development schemes known as “Strengthening of Emergency Service Academy, Lahore”. In the said scheme supply order for procurement of one Toyota Corolla and six Suzuki Jimny were issued but the same were not delivered. Audit is of the view that no vehicles under the above mentioned project was delivered till date of audit but expenditure charged to project is unjustified and irregular, reflecting upon the weak financial and management controls. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that the Disaster Response Force (DRF) has been established by the CM Punjab thatis stationed in the ESA. Theincreased training work load, response to major disasters / emergencies, led to major expenditure of ESA on POL and Repair of Transport. However, due to inadequate release of funds, the ESA is facing acute difficulty in meeting its financial obligations under heads of Transport and POL.The Finance

Department has released the funds now.accordingly, payment was made under the said heads after completing all codalformalities. The reply is not tenable as the expenditure charged to development fund of PC-1 is irregular because no vehicle has been procured for said project and using of POL of other assignment to this project is irregular. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC directed to regularize the expenditure from Finance Department. Audit recommends implementation of the decision taken during DAC.

PDP-135 (Emergency Service Academy,Lhr) 3.4.5 Splitting of expenditure to avoid open tender - Rs 4.149 million According to rule 8 of Punjab Procurement Rules 2014, a procuring agency shall, within one month from the commencement of a financial year, devise annual planning for all proposed procurements and according Rule 12 (1) a procuring agency shall advertise procurement of more than one hundred thousand rupees and up to the limit of two million rupees on the website of the Authority and at least one national daily newspaper. Audit observed that an amount of Rs 4.149 million was incurred for procurement of various items by splitting of work to avoid open tender as required under the rule. The detail is given in Annexure-XI& XII. Audit is of the view that the value of these procurements was more than one million rupees that was required to be advertised on the website of department as well as the PPR Authority along-with in at least one national daily newspaper. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. It was replied that bills pertain to miscellaneous items and purchase was made on different dates and in emergencies.In case of ESA, the purchase was made as per actual need and requirement of the Academy to avoid excess purchase of consumable store items. The reply is not tenable because a procuring agency should devise annual plan for all proposed procurements in order to avoid deliberate splitting as in this case.

In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC settled the para subject to verification that similar items are not purchased within one week by issuing different work orders. Audit recommends that complete record may be got verified from Audit.

PDP-126, PDP-136 (Rescue 1122 (HQ), Lhr, Emergency Service Academy, Lhr) 3.4.6 Non- imposition of liquidated damages -Rs 2.246 million As per clause No. 09 of supply order issued “The firm shall be liable to pay the liquidated damages (LD) @2% per month, 0.067% per day of the cost of late delivered supply after the expiry of delivery date for undelivered store(s), subject to maximum of 10% (5 months)”. Management of Rescue 1122 has made payment of Rs 94.519 million on 10th April, 2017 through cheque No. 2898216. M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. delivered only 400 motor cycles. Remaining 400 motor cycles were not delivered till period of audit. No liquidated damage wasimposed on M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. As per above mentioned clauseRs 2.246 million was to be imposed on M/s Atlas Honda Ltd. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that M/s Atlas Honda was asked to deliver 200 motorbikes to the fabricator and 200 more was added later on as per directions of the Competent Authority. Whereas, the M/s Atlas Honda was asked to retain the remaining 400 motorbikes at their end due to non-availability of space at stores of the Punjab Emergency Service till further order. The reply is not tenable as the supplier has provided only 400 motorbikes and remaining 400 motorbikes are yet to be supplied to fabricator. Therefore, liquidated damages has to be imposed on the supplier i.e. M/s Honda Atlas. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC decided that para stand and to be discussed in PAC as department could not justify non imposing of LD. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-123 (Rescue 1122 (HQ),Lhr)

3.4.7 Irregular award of contract to the 3rdlowest bidder - Rs 1.512 million According to PPRA Rule 4, procuring agencies, while engaging in procurements, shall ensure that the procurements are conducted in a fair and transparent manner, the object of procurement brings value for money to the agency and the procurement process is efficient and economical. Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) called a tender notice on the basis of “Single stage two envelopes bidding method” for procurement of equipment for management of emergencies in high rise buildings on 5th February, 2016.Initially five firms participatedand after technical evaluation three firms were qualified. The comparative statements showed that the financial offers/price quoted by technically responsive 1st and 2nd lowest firms bid were rejected with remarks that authorization letter is mandatory.Both firms were rejected by evaluation committee and contract was awarded to M/s Haseen Habib Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd.being the only distributor in Pakistan.Thisresulted in loss of Rs 1.513 million as detailed below: S. Firm Name Financial Bid Ranking Difference amount (1st No. (Rs) and 3rd lowest firm) (Rs) 1 M/s Ahmed Madix (Pvt.) Ltd. 3,182,400 2nd 2 M/s Meraj limited 2,542,080 1st 1,512,584 M/s Haseen Habib Corporation 3 4,054,664 3rd (Pvt.) Ltd. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied thatas per evaluation criteria in bidding documents the authorization certificate was mandatoryand 1st and 2nd lowest bidder failed to provide authorization letter whereas 3rd lowest bidder i.e. M/s Haseen Habib Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. was the only authorized dealer for supply of collapsible rescue heli basket and was also verified from principle. The reply is not tenable as the management of Rescue 1122 Lahore did not mentioned in open tender that only authorized dealers can fill the tender. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018. DAC ordered to inquire the matter to award the contract to 3rd lowest which cause the loss of Rs 1.513 million. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision. PDP-122 (Rescue 1122 (HQ),Lhr)

3.4.8 Mis-procurement of rescue items - Rs 1.390 million According to PPRA 04, procuring agencies, while engaging in procurements, shall ensure that the procurements are conducted in a fair and transparent manner, the object of procurement brings value for money to the agency and the procurement process is efficient and economical. Management of Rescue 1122 Academy made payment of Rs 1.390 million to M/s Zulifqar Ali & Co on account of purchase of rescue items. The expenditure incurred through obtaining three quotations in anunfair and non-transparent manner. This fact is confirmed from the same hand writing used to write the quotations. 15 Invoices contain serial number 309 to 324 in a sequence which is doubtful. The whole procurement was made in June, 2016 thorough quotations in piecemeal to avoid tender.Detail is provided in Annexure XIV. Audit is of the view that due to non-observance of prescribed procedure, the expenditure becomes doubtful. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that all the purchases were made in accordance with PPRA rules through quotation. Moreover, all the above mentioned items were approved in PC-I of the project. The reply is not tenable because the management of ESA Lahore made procurement in piecemeal in June to avoid tendering process. In the DAC meeting held on 2ndJanuary, 2018, DAC ordered inquiry to probe the issue as serial number are same and all procurements were made in June and the same handwriting is used in all quotations. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-131 (Emergency Service Academy, Lhr) 3.4.9 Undue favour to contractors by non-imposing of liquidated damages - Rs 1.348 million As per clause 7 of contract agreement, the firm shall be liable to pay liquidated damages @2% per month(0.067% per day) of the cost of late delivered

34 supply after the expiry of delivery date for undelivered store(s), subject to maximum of 10%. As per contract agreement signed on 28th September, 2016 the firm was bound to deliver the items within 4 months’ time. M/s Ahmad Medix (Pvt.) Ltd. failed to deliver the items in time and some items are not delivered till date of audit. The matter was pointed in August, 2017. In response department replied thatin compliance of the clause 4 of the agreement the supplying firm is instructed to pend supply and also cautioned to provide requisite performance guarantee vide letter No.Proc-1474/17(PES) dated 19th August, 2017 failing which strict punitive action shall be taken. The decision with regard to LD charges shall be taken on receipt of bill for aforementioned equipment and circumstances of the case. The reply is not tenable as the management is yet to receive pending items and no decision has been taken to impose LD charges. DAC in its meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, directed for imposition of LD on completion of contract and same be verified by audit. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-125 (Rescue 1122 (HQ),Lhr) 3.4.10 Loss due to non-rectification of mechanical issues under warranty period and non-imposition of penalty – Rs 1.184 million As per contract agreement the firm shall provide comprehensive repair and maintenance of the ambulances.As per clause 21 of contract agreement, in case firm fails to complete the repair jobs within schedule given, then penalty for delay shall be imposed @ Rs 2,000 for the first day, Rs 5,000 for the second day and Rs 10,000 for the third day and onwards delays Audit observed that King Long ambulances were supplied by M/s Afzal Motors (Pvt.) Ltd with comprehensive repair and maintenance warranty of 3 years or 100,000 Km’s whichever is earlier. Audit found that a large number of mechanical issues were reported to the Rescue 1122 Headquarter for rectification along with supply of parts. The matter was further taken up with M/s Afzal Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.

35 vide letter no. 177/2016 (R&M) dated 11th March, 2016 but said repair work was not done. Detail is given in Annexure-XV. Furthermore, DEO Rawalpindi also deputed two ambulances for repair work. As per clause 20 of contract agreement the repair work was to be completed within 3- 4 working days but these ambulances remained off road for 26 and 40days and no penalty was imposed on the contractor. The matter was pointed out the management in September, 2017.In response it was replied that the contract agreement was made by the Headquarter, Punjab Emergency Service, Lahorewith M/s Afzal Motors and the case has been taken up with the Headquarter. The reply is not acceptable. The amount of repair and maintenance during warranty period and penalty on delay repair work must be imposed. Audit is of the view that non rectification of mechanical issuesduring warranty period and non-imposition of penalty for delay in repair work is violation of contract agreement which resultedin loss to government exchequer. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018. DAC ordered recovery to be made within next 10 days. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-144, 148 (DEO Rescue 1122, RWP) Internal control 3.4.11 Payment of stipend in cash instead of bank account - Rs 96.711 million As per rule 4.49 (a) of (Treasury and Subsidiary), Rules, 1988 “Payments of Rs. 100,000 and above to contractors and suppliers shall not be made in cash by the Drawing and Disbursing Officers. Rescue 1122 department withdrawn an amount of Rs69.037 million from bank in cash for further disbursement to the trainees in the month of June, 2017. The payments made to trainees in cash instead of bank account is irregular.

Audit is of the view that inherent risk of fraud and embezzlement is involved in cash transactions and in order to avoid or minimize the risk, the payment was to be made through cross cheque. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that cash is drawn from the NBP for making payment of monthly stipend to the employees during training period at Emergency Services Academy.Moreover, cash is properly kept in lockand key in cash chest with proper security. The reply is not tenable because there is high risk in cash transactions amounting to Rs 96.711 million In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC settled the para subject to verification of cash already disbursed and with further direction that no cash payment be made on account of stipend. Audit recommends that complete record may be got verified from Audit.

PDP 129, 132 (Rescue 1122-HQ, Lhr, Emergency Service Academy, Lhr) 3.4.12 Irregular award of contract – Rs 30.900 million As per rule 4 of PPR 2014, a procuring agency while making any procurement, shall ensure that the procurement is made in a fair and transparent manner, the object of procurement brings value for money to the procuring agency and the procurement process is efficient and economical. Management of Rescue 1122 Headquarter paid interim payment of Rs 13.654 million for the procurement of uniform during the financial year 2016-17. It was observed that department floated a tender for procurement of uniform. In response 09 firms participated and 04 firms were technically qualified and 03 firms submitted their financial bid. M/s GM Chowdri & Sons declared as the lowest bidder. A contract agreement signed with M/s GM Chowdri & sons at cost of Rs 30.900 million. Audit further observed that after selection of lowest bidder, the management of Rescue 1122 made some alterations in the uniform specifications and asked the lowest bidder to do additional work. M/s GM Chowdri & Sons agreed to do additional work at the cost of Rs. 1.200 million. Management of Rescue 1122 Lahore accepted demand for additional Rs 1.200 million in addition to already quoted rates.

The following points were raised by audit: 1. Award of the additional work after finalization of technical and financial offers is unjustified. 2. Department negotiated the additional work, only with the lowest bidder which resulted into undue favour to the firm.

Audit is of the view that the procurement of uniform was made in violation of Punjab Procurement Rule 2014. Non-observing the procedural/ codal formalities is a serious lapse on the part of the management and it made the whole procurement irregular. The matter was pointed out to the management in August, 2017. The department replied that contract agreement was made with the contractor in accordance with the decision of the purchase committee. As per decision of the purchase committee the contractor bid was inclusive of all additional work and was still the lowest among all the bidders. The reply is not acceptable as the management made the amendment after finalization of tendering process. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC ordered to inquire the matter. Audit recommends implementation of DAC decision.

PDP-124 (Rescue 1122-HQ, Lhr) 3.4.13 Non-recovery on account of surety bond – Rs 5.800 million Clause 3 of Letter of Appointment states that “This appointment letter is subject to submission of surety bond of Rs. 100, 000 and Rs. 200, 000. In case of resignation during the tenure of this contract, the surety bond shall stand forfeited in favor of the Punjab Emergency Service and the appointee/employee shall be bound to deposit/pay the whole of the amount of surety bond to the Punjab Emergency Service otherwise our insurance proceeds shall be forfeited”. Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) appointed staff in different cadres on contract basis on different dates butmost of them either left the job by resigning

38 from the service or they were dismissed from service. The detail is given in AnnexureXVI. Audit is of the view that the department was required to recover the amount of surety bond when employee left the service as required under the rule which resulted in loss to the Government. The matter was pointed out in September, 2017.In response it was replied that matter has been taken up with the Headquarter. The reply is not tenable because no effort was made by the department to recover the amount of surety bonds. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018,DAC observed that no mechanism exists for recovery of surety bond for those who gain trainings. The matter may be placed before Punjab Emergency Council for consideration and approval of mechanism.

Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP 114, 118(DEO Rescue 1122, Multan, DG Khan) 3.4.14 Non-conducting of internal audit and physical verification According to Government instructions issued vide notification No. SOE-II (P&D) 1-15/07 dated 2nd February 2007, the Internal Auditor of the department shall exercise all budgetary and financial controls under the framed rules and the best practices prescribed by the Government. The internal audit of the accounts of Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) was required to be conducted by the Internal Auditor who shall prepare annual internal audit report also required under clause-18(2) of the said notification. Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) has not established internal audit wing of the department and internal audit of the department was not conducted for the period under audit, which is contrary to Govt. rules. At the same time no physical verification of stock is carried out.

The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied thatduring the period under audit, the post of Internal Auditor remained vacant. Soon after recruitment of internal auditor, the internal audit would be conducted. The reply is not tenable because internal audit wing is still non-functional. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, DAC directed to make an internal audit wing. Audit recommends thatimplementation of DAC decision.

PDP-127 (Rescue 1122-HQ, Lhr) 3.4.15 Granting of different pay scales to accounts assistants Finance Department of Government of Punjab directed to the Director General of Punjab Emergency Services (Rescue 1122) Lahore to withdraw the up- gradation order through letter No. F.D PC. 40-103/16 dated 24th November, 2016. Management of rescue 1122 granted two different pay scales i.e. (BPS-11 and BPS-14) to the same post i.e. Accounts Assistant. It is further observed that Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) Lahore upgraded the post of Accounts Assistant from BPS-11 to BPS-14 of 37 Accounts Assistant vide office order No. 798(HR&A)/16(PES) dated 7th March, 2016. Said up-gradation is made w.e.f. 1st July, 2007 or from the date of appointment whichever is later. Finance Department of Government of Punjab directed to the Director General of Punjab Emergency Services (Rescue 1122) Lahore to withdraw the up-gradation order through letter No. F.D. PC. 40-103/16 dated 24th November, 2016. Currently Accounts Assistants of Rescue 1122 Gujranwala, HafizabadandMandiBahaudin are getting pay of BPS-11 on other hand Account Assistant in Rescue 1122 Lahore and other district are getting pay of BPS-14. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. The department replied that at present the case of up gradation of Account Assistant is sub-judice in Lahore High Court. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018,it was decided to wait for the court orders before any action in this regard.

Audit recommends that matter may be pursued vigorously to decide the case.

PDP 141(DEO Rescue 1122, GRW) Performance 3.4.16 Launching of motorbike ambulance service project without proper planning - Rs 94.520 million As per rule 8 of PPR 2014, a procuring agency shall, within one month from the commencement of a financial year, devise annual planning for all proposed procurements with the object of realistically determining the requirements of the procuring agency, within its available resources, delivery time or completion date and benefits that are likely to accrue to the procuring agency in future”. The Rescue 1122 planned to launch motorbike ambulance service in nine district headquarters of the province. Management of Rescue 1122 entered into agreement with M/s Ahmed Medix Ltd for fabrication of 900 motorbike ambulances. As per agreement 100% advance payment of Rs 60.547 million was made.Delivery period of fabricated motorbike ambulances to the department was 05 months after delivery of motorbikes from M/s Honda Atlas to M/s Ahmad Medix. However, till4th August, 2017 only 400 motorbikes were provided by M/s Honda Atlas to M/s Ahmed Medix Ltd on which fabrication work is in process and no motorbike ambulances is provided to the Management of Rescue 1122. M/s Honda Atlas has to deliver another 400 motorbikes to M/s Ahmed Medix. It is observed that the delivery date of all the motorbikes was 25th May, 2017. However, procurement process was not completed till period of audit even 100% advance payment of Rs 94.519 million to M/s Atlas Honda. It is further observed that management placed order for procurement of 900 motor bikes but passed-out para medical staff was only 714. Motorbikes (186 no.) will remain unutilized till further recruitment in future. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that M/s Atlas Honda was asked to deliver 200 motorbikes to the fabricator and 200 more were added later on as per directions of the Competent Authority.

The reply is not tenable as the management did not carry out need assessment/ feasibility studyand incurred expenditure without proper planning. In the DAC meeting held on 2ndJanuary, 2018,DAC decided that Para stand as need assessment and feasibility study was not done which lead to wastage of resources. Audit recommends that matter may be investigated to fix the responsibility on the person(s) at fault for not planning the procurement, recruitment and training process.

PDP 121(Rescue 1122-Hq, Lhr) Others 3.4.17 Storage of medicines in poor and unhygienic condition - Rs 1.419 million As per clause No 3 of Notification No. SO(DC)7-2/2012 dated 28th November, 2016 of Government of Punjab Health Department “All the medicines must be kept on racks and shelves. Medicines shall be stored off the floor, suitably spaced to permit ventilation, cleaning and inspection. The stores may be arranged in the store room and shelves according to specific guidelines mentioned in the rules. The issuance of medicine will be done on FEFO (first expire first out) basis. According to clause 5 (V) medicines must be stored in dry, clean, well- ventilated area at room temperatures between 15°to 26° C (59° - 77°F) or up to 30° C, depending on climatic conditions. DEO Gujranwala made procurement of medicine locally amounting to Rs 0.324 millionbesides received medicines worth Rs 1.095 million from Headquarter, Lahore. Audit observed the following:  Room temperature of store was 33° C at 11:28AM  No inventory management system like FEFO (first expire first out) was used  Expired medicines were present in same store.  There was no ventilation arrangement available in room

 There was dust everywhere in store  Dead stock was also stored in the same store  Medicines were stacked without any arrangement/labeling

Audit is of the view that violation of issued instructions is very risky as it may result into loss of human life besides the financial loss. The matter was pointed out in August, 2017. In response department replied that all the medicines were arranged in shelves and according to the requirement of Government of the Punjab, Health Department. Expired medicines are present in store in the form of a sealed bag. It has been done only to keep record of the medicines. Disciplinary action has been taken against the store keeper for not complying with the rules and instructions. The reply is not tenable because medicines were kept in store of dead stock, no inventory management system is used, room’s temperature was 33°. Expired medicines also kept in same store in open bags. In the DAC meeting held on 2nd January, 2018, it was decided that verification for proper procedure for distribution and keeping medicine as per SOP will be done. Audit recommends implementation of the DAC decision.

PDP-137 (DEO Rescue 122, Gujranwala)

Annexures Annexure-I (MAFDAC) PDP No. Entity Subject 103 PDMA, Punjab Irregular payment on account of insurance of official vehicles – Rs 1.190 million 105 PDMA, Punjab Unjustified payment on account of detention charges – Rs 462,000 109 PDMA, Punjab Missing 5,000 tents – Rs 44.500 million 113 DEO 1122, Multan Non deduction of Punjab sales tax on services – Rs 193,109 115 DEO 1122, Multan Less deduction of Income Tax- Rs. 100,411 117 DEO 1122, DG Non deduction of Punjab sales tax on services – Rs 299,679 Khan 133 Emergency Service Loss due to theft of official vehicle - Rs 900,000 Academy, Lahore 134 Emergency Service Non deduction of Punjab sales tax on services - Rs 156,496 Academy, Lahore 139 DEO 1122, Irregular expenditure on account of repair and maintenance of Gujranwala vehicle - Rs 725,250 140 DEO 1122, Fraudulent payment based on fake quotations of repair and Gujranwala maintenance of vehicles - Rs 296,300 142 DEO 1122, Rwp Irregular cash payment to prequalified vendors – Rs 3.980 million 149 DEO 1122, Rwp Non deduction of Punjab sales tax on services – Rs 251,440 152 DDMA, Sialkot Irregular distribution of Food Hampers – Rs 8.445 million 154 DDMA, Sialkot Irregular payment on account of relief activities –Rs 3.209 million 160 DDMA, Irregular payment of compensation in excess of prescribed rate Gujranwala – Rs 512,000

Annexure-II to XVI Annexure-II Sr. No. Entity/Formation Location 1 PDMA-Punjab Lahore 2 DDMA Lahore 3 DDMA Kasur 4 DDMA Sheikhupura 5 DDMA Nankana Sahib 6 DDMA Bahawalpur 7 DDMA Bahawalnagar 8 DDMA Rahimyar Khan 9 DDMA D.G.Khan 10 DDMA Layyah 11 DDMA Muzaffargarh 12 DDMA Rajanpur 13 DDMA Faisalabad 14 DDMA Chiniot 15 DDMA Jhang 16 DDMA Toba Tek Singh 17 DDMA Gujranwala 18 DDMA Gujrat 19 DDMA Hafizabad 20 DDMA Mandi Bahaudin 21 DDMA Narowal 22 DDMA Sialkot 23 DDMA Multan 24 DDMA Khanewal 25 DDMA Lodhran 26 DDMA Vehari 27 DDMA Rawalpindi 28 DDMA Attock 29 DDMA Chakwal 30 DDMA Jhelum 31 DDMA Sahiwal 32 DDMA Okara 33 DDMA Pakpatan 34 DDMA Sargodha 35 DDMA Bhakar 36 DDMA Khusab 37 DDMA Mianwali 38 Rescue-1122 (HQ) Lahore 39 Emergency Service Academy Lahore 40 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Lahore

41 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Kasur 42 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Sheikh Pura 43 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Nankana Sahib 44 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Bahawalpur 45 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Bahawalnagar 46 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Rahimyar Khan 47 District Emergency Officer (DEO) D.G.Khan 48 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Layyah 49 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Muzaffargarh 50 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Rajanpur 51 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Faisalabad 52 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Chiniot 53 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Jhang 54 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Toba Tek Singh 55 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Gujranwala 56 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Gujrat 57 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Hafizabad 58 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Mandi Bahaudin 59 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Narowal 60 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Sialkot 61 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Multan 62 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Khanewal 63 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Lodhran 64 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Vehari 65 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Rawalpindi 66 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Attock 67 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Chakwal 68 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Jehlum 69 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Sahiwal 70 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Okara 71 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Pakpatan 72 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Sargodha 73 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Bhakar 74 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Khusab 75 District Emergency Officer (DEO) Mianwali 76 Directorate of Civil Defence Lahore 77 Directorate of Civil Defence (Medical Estb) Lahore 78 Civil Secretariat, Civil Defence Lahore 79 Regional Office Lahore 80 Regional Office Multan 81 Regional Office D.G.Khan 82 Regional Office Faisalabad 83 Regional Office Sargodha

84 Regional Office Rawalpindi 85 District Office, Civil Defence Lahore 86 District Office, Civil Defence Kasur 87 District Office, Civil Defence Sheikhupura 88 District Office, Civil Defence Nankana Sahib 89 District Office, Civil Defence Bahawalpur 90 District Office, Civil Defence Bahawalnagar 91 District Office, Civil Defence Rahimyar Khan 92 District Office, Civil Defence D.G.Khan 93 District Office, Civil Defence Layyah 94 District Office, Civil Defence Muzaffargarh 95 District Office, Civil Defence Rajanpur 96 District Office, Civil Defence Faisalabad 97 District Office, Civil Defence Chiniot 98 District Office, Civil Defence Jhang 99 District Office, Civil Defence Toba Tek Singh 100 District Office, Civil Defence Gujranwala 101 District Office, Civil Defence Gujrat 102 District Office, Civil Defence Hafizabad 103 District Office, Civil Defence Mandi Bahaudin 104 District Office, Civil Defence Narowal 105 District Office, Civil Defence Sialkot 106 District Office, Civil Defence Multan 107 District Office, Civil Defence Khanewal 108 District Office, Civil Defence Lodhran 109 District Office, Civil Defence Vehari 110 District Office, Civil Defence Rawalpindi 111 District Office, Civil Defence Attock 112 District Office, Civil Defence Chakwal 113 District Office, Civil Defence Jhelum 114 District Office, Civil Defence Sahiwal 115 District Office, Civil Defence Okara 116 District Office, Civil Defence Pakpatan 117 District Office, Civil Defence Sargodha 118 District Office, Civil Defence Bhakar 119 District Office, Civil Defence Khusab 120 District Office, Civil Defence Mianwali

Annexure-III to Para 1.4.2

Items Sample M/s GAT M/s SGS M/s GT Rate Paid Rate Difference Loss Procured Size for to be amount TPV Cost Per Cost per Cost paid (Rs) Unit Unit per Unit

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (7x8) 10 (3x9)

Out Board Motor 220 3,500 85 3,500 85 3,415 751,300 Engines

Fiberglass 232 1,400 85 1,400 85 1,315 305,080 Boats

Life Jackets 54 100 20 100 20 80 4,320

Life Rings 270 90 20 90 20 70 18,900

Dewatering Pumping 197 3,200 85 3,200 85 3,115 613,655 Sets

Tents 16,650 110 40 110 40 70 1,165,500

Hamper 30,882 480 - 20 480 20 460 14,205,720

Plastic Mat 625 25 40 25 25 - -

Blanket 9,918 20 40 20 20 - -

Total (Rs) 17,064,475

Annexure-IV to Para 1.4.6 Delivery Rate of Sr. Name of Work Qty Qty Qty Late Date of Delay in Total Amount of Particulars Date date as per Rate LD per No. Supplier order No. ordered Received supplied Supply days Amount Recovery W.O. day De- M/s Flds/(DW)- 25 25 25 10.08.2016 12.08.2016 2 310,000 7,750,000 0.25 38,750 Watering 1 Pakflow 2016/471/B- 8.8.16 Set 20 HP (2- 25 25 25 27.08.2016 08.09.2016 12 310,000 7,750,000 0.25 232,500 Pumps I Cusecs) 25 25 25 02.09.2016 08.09.2016 6 310,000 7,750,000 0.25 116,250 M/s Rubber 320- Suzuki 2 Boats & 2016/36/B- 19.01.17 50 50 50 20.04.17 22.06.2017 63 775,719 38,785,950 10 3,878,595 Motor OBMS I House Rubber 320-2016 / 3 M/s BET Boats & 19.01.17 50 50 50 20.04.17 03.05.2017 13 775,719 38,785,950 0.25 1,260,543 37 / B-I OBMS M/s Rubber 320- Logistics 4 Boats & 2016/37/ B- 19.01.17 50 50 50 20.04.17 23.05.2017 33 775,719 38,785,950 0.25 3,199,841 Associate OBMS I s Fld- 2016/310/B- 25.06.2016 30 27 3 02.07.2016 04.08.2016 33 281,970 845,910 0.25 6,344 I

Fld- OBM (40 70 0 31 24.07.2016 04.08.2016 11 281,970 8,741,070 0.25 677,433 5 M/s BET 2016/310/B- 25.06.2017 HP) I 0 39 24.07.2017 09.08.2016 16 281,970 10,996,830 0.25 1,072,191 Fld- 2016/310/B- 25.06.2016 52 29 23 15.08.2016 16.08.2016 1 281,970 6,485,310 0.25 372,905 I M/s Flds/(DW) De-watering 6 Maestro /2016/348/ 02.07.2016 68 30 38 30.07.2016 03.08.2016 4 210,000 7,980,000 0.25 79,800 sets Solutions B-I Flds/(Tent M/s s)- 7 Usman Tents 28.06.2016 10000 10000 10000 15.07.2016 07/08.10.206 83 8,900 89,000,000 10 8,900,000 2016/333/B- Traders I Total 19,835,153

Annexure-V to Para 1.4.10 a) Less Deduction of Income Tax – Rs 381,069 Total Cheque Penalty Payment Tax Tax to be Less Firm name Item Particular Amount of No. Amount Due Deducted Deducted Deduction bill M/s Food Hassan Hamper Income 65937 48,206,91 47,641,91 2,143,88 565,000 2,169,311 25,425 Muhamm s Tax 1 4 4 6 ad & Co M/s Tents Income 65936 89,000,00 7,903,20 81,096,80 3,649,35 Usman 4,005,000 355,644 Tax 8 0 0 0 6 Traders Total 381,069 b) Less deduction of GST on account of Food Hampers and Tents Tax to Total Tax Less Particula Chequ Penalty Payment be Firm name Item Amount Deducte Deductio r e No. Amount Due Deducte of bill d n d M/s Hassan Food General 48,206,91 47,641,91 6,922,32 7,004,42 Muhammad Hamper 659370 565,000 82,094 Sales Tax 4 4 9 3 & Co s M/s Usman Tents General 89,000,00 7,903,20 81,096,80 659367 772,350 847,619 75,269 Traders Sales Tax 0 0 0 Total 157,363 Grand Total (a+ b) 538,432

Annexure-VI to Para 1.4.11 Work order No. Date Vendor Name Qty. Rate Total Stamp (per Amount duty @ 25 unit) paisa per hundred (Rs) No.Flds/(DW)- 2.7.20 M/s Blue Star 66 210,000 13,860,000 34,650 2016/346/B-I 16 International No.Flds/(DW)- 2.7.20 M/s Dean's 66 210,000 13,860,000 34,650 2016/347/B-I 16 Creations No.Flds/(DW)- 2.7.20 M/s Maesrtro 68 210,000 14,280,000 35,700 2016/348/B-I 16 Solution No.Flds/(DW)- 28.7.2 M/s Dean's 10 310,000 3,100,000 7,750 2016/427/B-I 016 Creations No.Flds/(DW)- 28.7.2 M/s Blue Star 5 310,000 1,550,000 3,875 2016/428/B-I 016 International No.Flds/(DW)- 8.8.20 M/s Dean's 30 310,000 9,300,000 23,250 2016/467/B-I 16 Creations No.Flds/(DW)- 8.8.20 M/s Blue Star 10 310,000 3,100,000 7,750 2016/468/B-I 16 International No.Flds/(DW)- 8.8.20 M/s Maesrtro 10 310,000 3,100,000 7,750 2016/469/B-I 16 Solution No.Flds/(DW)- 8.8.20 M/s Shahid 25 310,000 7,750,000 19,375 2016/470/B-I 16 Traders No.Flds/(DW)- 8.8.20 M/s Pakflow 75 310,000 23,250,000 58,125 2016/471/B-I 16 Pumps No.Flds/(DW)- 8.8.20 M/s Solution 1,928,00 1 1,928,000 4,820 2016/472/B-I 16 Links 0 No.Flds/(Gen-set)- 22.7.2 M/s YPEL (Pvt) 30 324,001 9,720,030 24,300 2016/383/B-I 016 Ltd No.Flds/(Tent)- 28.6.2 M/s Usman 10,000 8,900 89,000,000 222,500 2016/333/B-I 016 Traders No.Flds/(PM)- 25.6.2 M/s Pearl 5,000 845 4,225,000 10,563 2016/317/B-I 016 Accosiates No.Flds/(B)- 23.6.2 M/s Fiber Craft 12 199,786 2,397,432 5,994 2016/306/B-I 016 Industries 188 334,786 62,939,768 157,349 No.Flds/(BT)- 12.8.2 M/s A-Tech 15 125,000 1,875,000 4,688 2016/481/B-I 016 International No.Flds/(LR)- 25.6.2 M/s Alizeh 500 6,250 3,125,000 7,813 2016/314/B-I 016 Enterprises No.Flds/(LR)- 25.6.2 M/s Usman 500 6250 3,125,000 7,813 2016/315/B-I 016 Traders

No.Flds/(LJ)- 25.6.2 M/s Alizeh 1500 5,250 7,875,000 19,688 2016/312/B-I 016 Enterprises No.Flds/(LJ)- 25.6.2 M/s Ali Trading 1500 5250 7,875,000 19,688 2016/313/B-I 016 Corporation No.Flds/(FH)- 27.6.2 M/s Hassan 10,000 2,413 24,130,000 60,325 2016/328/B-I 016 Mohd& Co No.Flds/(FH)- 22.7.2 M/s Hassan 10,000 2,413 24,130,000 60,325 2016/382/B-I 016 Mohd& Co No.Flds/(FH)- 8.8.20 M/s Mumtaz 10,000 2,413 24,130,000 60,325 2016/466/B-I 16 Brothers No.Flds/(FH)- 27.8.2 M/s Mumtaz 5,000 2,413 12,065,000 30,163 2016/525/B-I 016 Brothers No.Flds/(FH)- 2.12.2 M/s Mumtaz 2,500 2,413 6,032,500 15,081 2016/714/B-I 016 Brothers No.Flds/(WF)- 27.8.2 M/s Abdul 500 851 425,500 1,064 2016/532/B-I 016 Wasy No.Flds- 25.6.2 M/s Business & 152 281,970 42,859,440 107,149 2016/310/B-I 016 Engineering & No.Flds- 28.6.2 Trends (BET) 27 508,950 13,741,650 34,354 2016/320/B-I 016 No.(IMMS)(8)/(9)/2 21.10. 99,707,5 M/s Super Tek - 99,707,500 249,269 016/633/B-I 2016 00 No.Flds/(PB)- 07.7.2 M/s Noor (Pvt) 9,700 77.22 749,034 1,873 2016/352/B-I 016 Ltd. No.Flds/(HTD)- 17.8.2 M/s Assetlink 80,800,0 - 80,800,000 202,000 2016/499/B-I 016 Asia 00 No. Flds- 25.06. M/s Motor 40 281,970 11,278,800 28,197 2016/311/B-I 16 House 19.01. M.s Suzuki No. 320-2016/36/B-I 50 775,719 38,785,950 96,965 17 Motor House 19.01. No. 320-2016/37/B-I M.s BET 50 775,719 38,785,950 96,965 17 19.01. M.s Logistic No. 320-2016/38/B-I 50 775,719 38,785,950 96,965 17 Associates M/s Ashraf 28,568,584 71,421 Munir company M/s United 04.11. 315-2016/660/B-I Insurance 11,890,710 29,727 2016 company 329(CM)F- 16.08. M/s Super Tek 23,000,000 57,500 2016/495/B-1 2016 M/s GAT 14,823,360 37,058 M/s SGS 3,840,235 9,601 Total 2,064,413

Annexure-VII to Para 1.4.12 Sr.No Name of Item Qty. Qty. of Qty. of Rate Paid To be Difference Procured TPV TPV to paid (Rs) carried be out carried out 1 Out Board 179 220 66 3,500 770,000 231,000 539,000 Motor Engines(40hp) Out Board Motor Engines(60hp) 2 Fiberglass 200 232 70 1,400 324,800 98,000 226,800 Boats (19ft) Fiberglass Boats (24ft) 3 Life Jacket 3000 54 16 100 5,400 1,600 3,800

4 Life Ring 1000 270 81 90 24,300 7,290 17,010

5 De-Watering 366 197 59 3,200 630,400 188,800 441,600 Set (1,2 & 4 Cusecs) 9 Drip Stand 31 9 150 4,650 1350 3,300 10 Hospital 30 9 150 4,500 1350 3,150 Trolley 11 Mosquito Net 124 37 100 12,400 3700 8,700 12 Hospital Bed 122 37 150 18,300 5550 12,750 13 Blankets 9918 2975 20 198,360 59500 138,860 Total (Rs) 1,993,110 598,140 1,394,970

Annexure-VIII to Para 1.4.13 Social Protection Revised Budget Progressive Difference Expenditure (Rs) A03-TOTAL OPRATING EXPENCE 1,252,830,000 770,382,062 482,447,938 A-032-Communications 1,767,000 1,204,620 562,380 A-03201-Postage & stamps 17,000 17,000 - A-03202-Telephone & Trunkcalls 1,750,000 1,187,620 562,380 A033-Utilites. 4,095,000 3,129,303 965,697 A03301-Gas 25,000 5,880 19,120 A03302-Water Charges 60,000 48,489 11,511 A-03303-Electrcity 4,000,000 3,074,934 925,066 A-03304-Hot & Cold Charges 10,000 - 10,000 Total Occupancy costs. 34,148,000 28,802,695 5,345,305 A-03402-Rent of Office Building 9,075,000 9,075,000 - A03407-Rates and Taxes. 70,000 16,040 53,960 A03470-Othres 1,000 - 1,000 A03603-Registration 5,001,000 1,264,720 3,736,280 A03770-Others 20,001,000 18,446,935 1,554,065 A-038-TOTAL TRAVEL & TRANSPORTATION 43,512,000 35,174,422 8,337,578 A-03805-T.A 250,000 247,020 2,980 A-03807-P.O.L 9,000,000 6,358,818 2,641,182 A-03808-Conveyance Charges 2,000 - 2,000 A03821-Training Domestic. 10,000 - 10,000 A03826-Transportation of Goods. 34,250,000 28,568,584 5,681,416 A-039-GENERAL 1,169,308,000 702,071,022 467,236,978 A-03901-Stationery 500,000 390,591 109,409 A-03902-Printing & Publication. 30,000 - 30,000 A-03903-Confrence/Seminars/Workshops 1,000 - 1,000 A-03904-Hire of vehicle. 1,000 - 1,000 A-03905-News paper & Books 20,000 - 20,000 A-03906-Uniforms & Liveries. 25,000 - 25,000 A-03907-Publicity & Adver Charges 80,000,000 56,376,228 23,623,772 A-03915-Payments to Govt:Dept: 5,000,000 - 5,000,000

A-03917-Law Charges 6,000 - 6,000 A-03918-Exhibitions Fairs & Others. 1,000 - 1,000 A-03919-Payment to service Rended 20,001,000 19,853,305 147,695 A-03921-Unforeseen Expenditure. 1,000 - 1,000 A-03927-Purchase of Drugs Madicine. 1,000 - 1,000 A-03942-Cost of other stores, 1,063,591,000 625,366,236 438,224,764 A-03955-Computer Stationery 70,000 49,058 20,942 A-03970-Othres 60,000 35,604 24,396 A04-Total Employees Retirement B.Fits 1,341,000 1,339,980 1,020 A04114-Superannuation Encashment of LPR 1,341,000 1,339,980 1,020 A-052-Grant Domestic 133,400,000 133,400,000 - A-05216- Fin.Assis.to the families of G.Serv. Who expire 1,400,000 1,400,000 - A-05270-Others. 132,000,000 132,000,000 - A-06-Total Transfers 301,000 294,579 6,421 A-06301-Entertainments & Gifts 301,000 294,579 6,421 A-09-Total Physical Assets 126,326,000 94,243,948 32,082,052 A09202-Software 20,001,000 - 20,001,000 A-09301-Food 106,325,000 94,243,948 12,081,052 A0-95-Transport 113,002,000 31,075,500 81,926,500 A-09501-Purchase of Transport 110,001,000 31,075,500 78,925,500 A09701-Purchase of Furniture & Fixture 3,001,000 - 3,001,000 A-13-TOTAL Repair & Maintenance. 14,099,000 12,954,745 1,144,255 A-130-Transport 2,400,000 1,323,251 1,076,749 A-13001-Transports. 2,400,000 1,323,251 1,076,749 A-131-Machinery & Equipment. 6,639,000 6,637,570 1,430 A-13101-Machinery & Equipment. 70,000 69,570 430 A-13199-Others 6,569,000 6,568,000 1,000 A-132-Furniture & Fixture. 60,000 - 60,000 A-13201-Furniture & Fixture. 60,000 - 60,000 A133-Building & Structure 5,000,000 4,993,924 6,076 A-13370-Others 5,000,000 4,993,924 6,076 TOTAL RELIEF MESSAURES. 1,641,299,000 1,043,690,814 597,608,186

Annexure-IX to Para 2.4.2 Sr. Cheque Date Purpose Quantity Cheque No. No. Amount (Rs) 2 KV UPS with accessories 8 234,000 200A Wet Batteries 8 187,200 Wireless Base sets / mobile radios with complete accessories 8 468,000 Onboard lighting system with 1 472154 13.10.16 complete accessories 8 187,200 12 Long distance moving head sky light 2 234,000 7KV Petrol Generator with complete accessories 2 397,800 Phantom-4 Drown Camera with 2 491270 07.11.16 1 304,200 intelligent Flight Battery Phantom-4 Drown Camera with 3 472156 16.11.16 1 304,200 intelligent Flight Battery OBM YAMMHA (40HP) 1 550,000 OBM YAMMHA (15HP) 3 1,350,000 4 491285 22.12.16 Fiber Boat Double Hull (19Ft) 1 600,000 Fiber Boat Double Hull (11Ft) 3 1,050,000 Total (Rs) 5,866,600

Annexure-X to Para 2.4.3 Income Cheque Vendor Cheque GST not Sr. No. Date Purpose Quantity Rate Amount GST Tax Not No. Name Amount Deducted Deducted M.S 1 491261 16.08.16 Nestle Bottle 3,000 160 480,000 - 480,000 69,744 21,600 Traders Superinten dent Dairy Ration 10 per Kg 1,600 310 496,000 - 496,000 72,068 - 2 491262 29.08.16 Livestock Experiment Station Dairy Ration 10 per Kg 1,600 310 496,000 - 496,000 72,068 - 2 KV UPS with 8 25,000 200,000 34,000 234,000 34,000 10,530 accessories 200A Wet Batteries 8 20,000 160,000 27,200 187,200 27,200 8,424 Wireless Base sets / mobile radios with 8 50,000 400,000 68,000 468,000 68,000 21,060 complete accessories M.S 3 472154 13.10.16 Onboard lighting Traders system with complete 8 20,000 160,000 27,200 187,200 27,200 8,424 accessories 12 Long distance 2 100,000 200,000 34,000 234,000 34,000 10,530 moving head sky light 7KV Petrol Generator with complete 2 170,000 340,000 57,800 397,800 57,800 17,901 accessories

Phantom-4 Drown 4 491270 07.11.16 Camera with intelligent 1 260,000 44,200 304,200 304,200 44,200 13,689 Flight Battery M.S Traders Phantom-4 Drown 5 472156 16.11.16 Camera with intelligent 1 260,000 44,200 304,200 304,200 44,200 13,689 Flight Battery

OBM YAMMHA 1 550,000 550,000 - 550,000 79,915 24,750 (40HP) OBM YAMMHA 3 450,000 1,350,000 - 1,350,000 196,154 60,750 M.S (15HP) 6 491285 22.12.16 Traders Fiber Boat Double Hull 1 600,000 600,000 - 600,000 87,179 27,000 (19Ft) Fiber Boat Double Hull 3 350,000 1,050,000 - 1,050,000 152,564 47,250 (11Ft) Total 7,338,600 1,066,292 285,597 Total Amount of Income Tax and GST 1,351,889

Annexure-XI to Para 2.4.5 Item Quantity Quantity Difference Rate Amount dispatched by received by (Rs) PDMA Lahore DC Sialkot Pneumatic Boat with (40 Hp 5 0 5 281,270 1,406,350 OBM) Boats (19Ft) 24 24 199,786 4,794,864 Boats (24Ft) 6 6 0 234,786 - OBM (40 HP) 30 6 24 281,270 6,750,480 Tent 1533 0 1533 8,900 13,643,700

Life Jacket 430 212 218 5,250 1,144,500

Life Ring 337 300 37 6,250 231,250 Dewatering Set 74 10 64 210,000 13,440,000 (1 Cusec) Dewatering Set 19 0 19 310,000 5,890,000 (2 Cusec) Dewatering Set 1 0 1 1,928,000 1,928,000 (4 Cusec) Generator Set 4 0 4 324,001 1,296,004 (5 KVA) Plastic Mat 490 0 490 845 414,050

Mosquito Net 1300 0 1300 rate not known -

Total (Rs) 50,939,198

Annexure-XII to Para 3.4.5

S.No. Firm name Head of A/c work/Supply order date Amount (Rs) 1 06.04.16 99,248 Saad Enterprises 2 12.04.16 99,801 3 20.05.15 98,886 4 20.05.15 81,995 5 Abu Turab 26.05.15 94,361 6 03.06.15 98,982 7 06.06.15 99,450 8 09.05.15 98,950 Global Machinery Parts. 9 12.05.15 98,875 10 23.07.16 99,984 11 23.07.16 99,950 12 25.07.16 48,250 13 04.05.15 87,750 Other Misc & 14 27.05.15 93,600 Cost of other 15 Chauhan Traders 27.05.15 99,450 store 16 06.06.15 97,988 17 10.06.15 92,430 18 11.06.15 87,844 19 16.04.16 98,280 20 13.04.16 98,280 21 27.05.16 98,210 Zulifqar Ali & Co 22 31.05.16 97,010 23 metologix security & IT 30.12.15 97,812 24 solution provider 30.12.15 98,046 25 19.05.16 99,737 J.K traders 26 20.05.16 99,737 27 28.12.15 77,103 Global Machinery Parts. 28 29.12.15 92,898 Total (Rs) 2,634,907

Annexure-XIII to Para 3.4.5

S.No. Cheque/Bi Date Firm name Head of A/c work/Supp Amount ll No. ly order (Rs) date 1 2977409 20.06.2017 M/s Fahmila Enterprise Cost of others Store 02.04.2017 86,625

2 2973190 24.06.2017 M/s Fahmila Enterprise Cost of others Store 03.04.2017 94,500

3 2938591 12.06.2017 M/s Fahmila Enterprise Cost of others Store 30.04.2017 86,625

4 2977406 20.06.2017 M/s Hafiz u Rehman& Co Cost of others Store 18.05.2017 84,188

5 2800986 20.10.2016 M/s National Trading Cost of others Store 30.08.2016 174,915 Comp 6 2977413 20.06.2017 M/s Rehab Enterprise Cost of others Store 03.05.2017 84,000

7 2977410 20.06.2017 M/s Scientific Corporation Cost of others Store 17.05.2017 96,642

8 2977413 20.06.2017 M/s Zulifqar Ali & Co Cost of others Store 06.06.2017 97,900

9 2895866 05.04.2017 M/s Zulifqar Ali & Co Cost of others Store 18.05.2017 79,560

10 01.10.2016 79,600

11 04.08.2016 79,600 2802489 03.11.2016 M/s Osman Enterprise Cost of others Store 12 07.09.2016 79,600

13 20.09.2016 96,500

14 270 97,400

15 271 27.03.2017 M/s Chauhan Traders Cost of others Store 24.03.2017 99,000

16 269 97,700

Total (Rs) 1,514,3551

Annexure-XIV to Para 3.4.8 Bill Invoice Supply Date Of Financial Amount Sr# Firm Name No Date Order Date Payment Year (Rs) Zulfiqar Ali & 309 1 CO 15.06.2016 10.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 95,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 310 2 CO 10.06.2016 04.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 95,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 311 3 CO 10.06.2016 07.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 97,600 Zulfiqar Ali & 312 4 CO 15.06.2016 04.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 75,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 313 04.06.2016 5 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 98,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 314 11.06.2016 6 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 87,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 316 13.06.2016 7 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 99,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 317 07.06.2016 8 CO 10.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 95,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 318 07.06.2016 9 CO 10.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 95,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 319 10.06.2016 10 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 88,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 320 07.06.2016 11 CO 10.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 98,125 Zulfiqar Ali & 321 10.06.2016 12 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 99,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 322 10.06.2016 13 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 100,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 323 07.06.2016 14 CO 10.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 70,000 Zulfiqar Ali & 324 10.06.2016 15 CO 15.06.2016 24.06.2016 2015-16 98,500 Total 1,390,225

Annexure-XV to Para 3.4.10 Sr. No Parts Required Quantity Rate (Approx.) Total (Rs) 1 Meter 3 9,500 28,500 2 Rear wheel cylinder 2 900 1,800 3 ABS Motor 5 16,500 82,500 4 Lower and lower Ball joint 4 6,375 25,500 5 Front and rear shock 3 5,000 15,000 6 Radiator 2 11,500 23,000 7 Radiator shield 1 2,500 2,500 8 Radiator fan and Motor 1 3,500 3,500 9 Spare water bottle 2 1,200 2,400 10 Gear lever kit 5 2,000 10,000 11 In let Air pipe 2 4,000 8,000 12 Brake caliper kit 3 10,200 30,600 13 Fuel Tank opener cable 2 1,600 3,200 14 Steering assembly 2 22,500 45,000 15 Power pump 5 9,000 45,000 16 Fuel Gauge 1 2,500 2,500 17 Temperature Gauge 1 2,500 2,500 18 Fog lights (02 set) 4 2,250 9,000 19 Head lights (04 set) 8 9,500 76,000 20 Disk pad set (04) 16 2,600 41,600 21 Clutch and pressure plate 1 15,500 15,500 22 AC Compressor 2 34,500 69,000 23 Synchronize ring 2 2,500 5,000 24 Front suspension 1 32,000 32,000 cost of parts 579,600 Labour Charges (approx.) 50,000 Total 629,600 Sr. No. Call Total Schedule No. Of Penalty Penalty Penalty Total Sign Days Off time for days @ @ @ 10,000 Road repair defaulted 2,000 5,000 per day per day per day 1 RA-25 40 4 36 2,000 5,000 340,000 347,000 2 RA-26 26 4 22 2,000 5,000 200,000 207,000 Total (Rs): 4,000 10,000 540,000 554,000 G.Total (629,600+554,000) 1,183,600

Annexure-XVI to Para 3.4.13 Sr. Name Formation Designation Remarks Amount (Rs) No. 1 Muhammad Din DG Khan EMT Resigned 200,000 2 M Asad Abbas DG Khan FR Resigned 200,000 3 Shahzad Ahmed DG Khan FR Resigned 200,000 4 Kaleem Ahmed DG Khan FR Resigned 200,000 5 Qazi Fakhar Imam DG Khan FR Resigned 200,000 6 Khizir Hayat DG Khan RD Resigned 100,000 7 Mulazim Hussain DG Khan SG Resigned 100,000 8 Rafique Ahmad Multan EO Resigned 300,000 9 Aamir Iqbal Multan LFR Resigned 200,000 10 Naeem Ahmad Multan LFR Resigned 200,000 11 Shoukat Ali Multan LFR Resigned 200,000 12 Kamran Kaleem Multan LFR Resigned 200,000 13 Ghulam Abbas Tahir Multan FR Resigned 200,000 14 Muhammad Zahid Multan FR Resigned 200,000 15 M. Shahbaz Ahmad Multan AA Resigned 200,000 16 Shahzad Hussain Multan CTWO Resigned 200,000 17 Shahzad Ali Multan CTWO Resigned 200,000 18 Ghazi Ahmad Multan CTWO Resigned 200,000 19 Nazar Abbas Multan CTWO Resigned 200,000 20 Muhhammad Zeeshan Multan EMT Resigned 200,000 21 Farooq Ahmad Multan EMT Resigned 200,000 22 M, Amir Ismail Multan EMT Resigned 200,000 23 Pir Nizam Ud Din Multan FR Resigned 200,000 24 Muhammad Shafi Multan FR Resigned 200,000 25 Muhammad Shafiq Multan FR Resigned 200,000 26 Muhammad Shiaib Multan FR Resigned 200,000 27 Ghulam Fareed Multan LTV Resigned 100,000 28 M. Farooq Zubair Multan LTV Resigned 100,000 29 Ijaz Ahmad Multan LTV Resigned 100,000 30 M. Khalil Sajid Multan LTV Resigned 100,000 31 Shahid Waseem Multan LTV Resigned 100,000 32 Arshad Balouch Multan LTV Resigned 100,000 33 Zafar Mehmood Multan SG Resigned 100,000 Total 5,800,000