Department of the Auditor General of Pakistan

AUDIT REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTS OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (FEDERAL) AUDIT YEAR 2018-19

AUDITOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...... i PREFACE ...... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... v SUMMARY TABLES & CHARTS ...... viii I Audit Work Statistics ...... viii II Audit observations regarding Financial Management ...... viii III Outcome Statistics ...... ix IV Table of Irregularities pointed out ...... x V Cost-Benefit ...... x CHAPTER-1 Public Financial Management Issues ...... 1 Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) ...... 1 1.1 Audit Paras ...... 1 CHAPTER-2 Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) ...... 7 2.1 Introduction of Authority ...... 7 2.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis) ...... 7 2.3 Brief comments on the status of compliance with PAC directives ...... 7 2.4 AUDIT PARAS ...... 9 CHAPTER-3 National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) ...... 56 3.1 Introduction of Authority ...... 56 3.2 Budget and Expenditure ...... 57 3.3 AUDIT PARAS ...... 58 CHAPTER-4 ...... 73 FATA Disaster Management Authority (FDMA)...... 73 4.1 Introduction of Authority ...... 73 4.2 Budget and Expenditure ...... 74 4.3 AUDIT PARAS ...... 75 Annexures ...... 90

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS AFS Annual Financial Statements AGPR Accountant General Pakistan Revenues AJK/AJ&K Azad Jammu and Kashmir BCDP Bagh City Development Project BHU Basic Health Unit BOQ Bill of Quantity Cft. Cubic Feet CLCP Citizen Losses Compensation Program Co. Company CSR Composite Schedule of Rates Cu.m Cubic meter CWE China International Water & Electric Company CXB China Xinjiang Beixin Construction & Engineering (Group) Co. Ltd. DAC Departmental Accounts Committee DDMA District Disaster Management Authority DDO Drawing & Disbursing Officer DDR Deputy Director Reconstruction DG Director General DRU District Reconstruction Unit DSR Daily Situation Report ECNEC Executive Committee of the National Economic Council EOT Extension of time ERRA Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority FBR Federal Board of Revenues FDMA Fata Disaster Management Authority GCC General Conditions of Contract GFR General Financial Rules GGPS Government Girls Primary School GHS Government High School GOP Government of Pakistan GPS Government Primary School GSM Grams per Square Meter GST General Sales Tax HSD High Speed Diesel IPC Interim Payment Certificate IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards JV Joint Venture Km Kilometer KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa i

LD Liquidated Damages Ltd. Limited MCDP Muzaffarabad City Development Project M/s Messer Mm Millimeter NDMA National Disaster Management Authority NDMF National Disaster Management Fund NESPAK National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. NHA National Highway Authority NIDA National Income Daily Account No. Number NOC No Objection Certificate NSI Non-Scheduled Items O.M. Office Memorandum PAC Public Accounts Committee PAO Principal Accounting Officer PC-I Planning Commission form One PCC Particular Condition of the Contract PCSIR Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research PDMA Provincial Disaster Management Authority PDP Proposed Draft Para PEC Pakistan Engineering Council PERRA Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency P.M Prime Minister PM Program Manager/Per month PMU Project Management Unit POL Petrol Oil and Lubricant PPRA Public Procurement Regulatory Authority PPS Project Pay Scales PSC Provincial Steering Committee / Program Steering Committee PSDP Public Sector Development Program Pvt. Private PWD Public Works Department Qty Quantity RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete RCDP Rawalakot City Development Project RD Road Distance Rft Running feet RRU Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Unit Rs. Rupees SAC Statement At Completion ii

SERRA State Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency SFD Saudi Fund for Development Sft. Square feet SPC Special Project Cell Sq.m Square meter SRO Statutory Regulatory Order TOC Taking Over Certificate TS Technical Sanction VO Variation Order Vol Volume

iii

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 Federal Government for the financial year 2017-18 and accounts of some formations for previous years. The Directorate General Audit (Disaster Management) conducted audit during the year 2018-19 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. Most of the observations included in this report have been finalized in the light of discussions in the DAC meetings. The Audit Report is submitted to the President in pursuance of the Article 171 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, for causing it to be laid before both houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).

Dated: February 2019 [Javaid Jehangir] Auditor-General of Pakistan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Director 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. The Director General Audit (Disaster Management) has a human resource of 44 personnel with 7,440 man-days available. The annual budget of the Directorate General Audit Disaster Management for the financial year 2018-19 is Rs. 59.028 million. There are 04 Federal PAOs and 43 auditable formations. As per Audit Plan, both expenditure and receipts of these formations were audited on test check basis by selecting 09 out of 43 formations during Audit Year 2018-19. a. Scope of audit Out of a total expenditure of Rs. 10,866.392 million (ERRA Rs. 7,300.883 million, NDMA Rs. 270.170 million, FDMA Rs. 3,295.339 million) of Federal Disaster Management Organizations, the DG Audit, Disaster Management audited an expenditure of Rs. 4,330.273 million (ERRA Rs. 3,277.223 million, NDMA Rs. 122.550 million, FDMA Rs. 930.500 million), which in terms of percentage is 39.85% of auditable expenditure. The audit covered issues of propriety, efficiency and economy in public spending. b. Recoveries at the instance of audit Recoveries of Rs. 718.260 million were pointed out by audit out of which recovery of Rs. 10.705 million was admitted during DAC. However, the recovery is not yet verified till the time of compilation of this report. All these recoveries were not in the notice of the executive before audit.

v c. Audit Methodology The Audit Year 2018-19 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 audited entity and identification of high risk area for substantive testing. The audit was conducted in accordance with the INTOSAI Auditing Standards as envisaged in Financial Audit Manual (FAM). The overall objective of the audit was to assess compliance with financial rules and adequacy of internal controls. The audit covered issues of propriety, efficiency and economy in public spending. 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 the recommendation of Audit, the management of ERRA has framed ERRA Employees Service Rules & Regulations, which are under the process of approval at Government level. Further, NDMA has accepted to establish Internal Audit Wing to conduct internal audit. e. Comments on Internal Control and Internal Audit Department The organizations have their own Internal Control mechanism. However, the same needs improvement. The system of internal audit is in place but no internal audit report was shared with external audit. f. Key audit findings of the report i. Weak financial management resulting in irregular / unauthorized payments / violation of rules involving Rs. 1,335.536 million in 14 cases.1 ii. Irregular / unauthorized payments / violation of rules involving Rs. 1,922.253 million2

1 Para 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.5 to 2.4.7, 2.4.11, 2.4.12, 2.4.14 to 2.4.16, 3.3.11, 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.3.10 vi

iii. Recoveries were pointed out in 24 cases amounting to Rs. 718.260 million3. iv. LD amounting to Rs. 136.381 million was not imposed in 2 cases4. v. Inadmissible payment on account of General Items of Rs. 60.444 million was made to the contractor in a case5. vi. Inappropriate / irregular asset management amounting to Rs. 34.848 million has been observed6. g. Recommendations It is recommended that the PAOs should take necessary steps to evaluate the financial management systems in order to strengthen and institutionalize internal controls. The recommendations made are: i. Irregular/un-authorized payments need to be regularized or recovered from the responsible person(s) as decided in the DAC meetings. ii. Internal Controls should be strengthened and internal audit be conducted on a regular basis and an internal audit report needs to be shared with Audit. iii. The asset management and inventory controls be made effective through continuous monitoring systems. iv. The PPRA rules be followed by ensuring transparency and competition in order to benefit the departments while making procurements. v. Reconciliation of expenditure is mostly neglected that needs to be given due importance 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 the Audit.

2 Para 2.4.1, 2.4.4 to 2.4.7, 2.4.9, 2.4.12, 2.4.14 to 2.4.16, 2.4.18 to 2.4.20, 2.4.22, 2.4.23, 2.4.27, 2.4.29, 2.4.34, 2.4.35, 3.3.1, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.9 to 3.3.12, 4.3.1 to 4.3.7, 4.3.9, 4.3.10 3 Para 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 2.4.7, 2.4.11, 2.4.12, 2.4.14 to 2.4.20, 2.4.22, 2.4.24 to 2.4.26, 2.4.29, 2.4.34, 3.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 4.3.4 to 4.3.6 4Para 2.4.17, 2.4.29 5Para 2.4.14 6Para 2.4.2 vii

SUMMARY TABLES & CHARTS

Table 1 Audit Work Statistics (Rs. in million) S. No. Description No. Budget 1 Total Entities (Ministries/PAOs) in Audit 04 11,392.756 Jurisdiction 2 Total formations in audit jurisdiction 43 11,392.756 3 Total Entities(Ministries/PAOs) Audited 03 10,866.392 4 Total formations Audited 9 10,866.392 5 Audit & Inspection Reports 9 10,866.392 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 Unsound asset management 34.848 2 Weak financial management (specific) 1,335.536 3 Weak Internal controls relating to 51.687 financial management 4 Others 924.223 Total 2,346.294

viii

Table 3 Outcome Statistics

(Rs. in million) S. Description Expenditure Civil Receipts Others Total Total last No. on Acquiring Works current year Physical year Assets (Procurement) 1 Outlays - - - - 10,866.392 12,605.965 Audited 2 Amount 34.848 321.582 - 1,271.604 1628.034 4,442.958 Placed under Audit Observations /Irregularities. 3 Recoveries - 571.545 8.000 135.365 718.260 3,181.395 Pointed Out at the instance of Audit 4 Recoveries 10.705 10.705 285.358 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 1,922.253 principle of propriety and probity in public operations. 2 Reported cases of fraud, embezzlement, thefts and 0 misuse of public resources. 3 Accounting errors (accounting policy departure from 0 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 51.687 systems. 5 Recoveries and overpayments, representing cases of establishment overpayment or misappropriations of 38.150 public money 6 Non–production of record 0 7 Others, including cases of accidents, negligence etc. 334.204

Table 5 Cost-Benefit

S. No. Description Amount (Rs. in million) 1 Outlays Audited (Items 1 of Table 3) 10,866.392 2 Expenditure on Audit 22.462 3 Recoveries realized at the instance of Audit - 4 Cost-Benefit Ratio -

Chapter-1

Public Financial Management Issues Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) The Directorate General Audit (Disaster Management) conducted the certification audit of accounts for the financial year 2017-18 during the audit year 2018-19. As a result of certification audit, the significant issues observed are given in Audit Paras below: 1.1 Audit Paras

The observations arising out of certification audit for the year 2017-18 are reproduced below: 1.1.1 Non deposit of profit into government treasury - Rs. 34.955 million As per Para 26 of ERRA Accounting Procedure, the receipts if any generated by the Authority shall be the receipts of the government and shall be deposited in the government treasury on the same day, and if received after banking hours, on the next working day. The management of ERRA is maintaining a non-lapsable bank account bearing No. 14-5 under the title ‘ERRA Fund Account’ in NBP Foreign Office branch with the approval of Finance Division. The account is profit bearing but the approval of Finance Division regarding opening of fund account is silent about the nature of account. ERRA earned a profit / interest of Rs. 34.955 million during the financial year 2017-18. Contrary to the rule referred above, instead of depositing the profit into Government Treasury, the management retained the profit in its ERRA Fund Account. Audit holds that deposit of receipts accrued on account of profit earned into ERRA fund is in violation of Para 26 of ERRA accounting procedure. Audit further holds that neither approval of the Finance Division specifically for the maintaining of NIDA account/profit bearing has been obtained nor regulations have been prepared by ERRA and got approved from Finance Division to operate the ERRA Fund account, identify its sources of receipt and scheme/category of expenditure out of it.

The matter was pointed out on 18th October 2018. The management in its reply dated 22nd November 2018 stated that ERRA fund was established in light of section 15 of ERRA act and profit is being deposited into fund account. Matter is taken up with Finance Division. The DAC in its meeting dated 04.12.2018 decided that the matter would be referred to Finance Division. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that profit earned be deposited into government treasury and approval of Finance Division for opening of profit bearing account be obtained besides preparation and approval of regulation to operate ERRA fund account. (OS No. 01) 1.1.2 Non closure of Bank accounts of closed projects (CDPs) having cash balances - Rs. 222.805 million Para-17 of Accounting Procedure of ERRA provides that the funds shall be transferred by the ERRA directly to the dedicated bank accounts of the respective organizations to be opened with National Bank of Pakistan. The disbursements shall be made as per the financial phasing of various programmes, projects, schemes etc., and the stipulations of the agreements entered into with such organizations, if any. The ERRA funds shall only be utilized by these organizations for the eligible expenditures pertaining to the projects entrusted to them by the ERRA. During certification audit of ERRA accounts for the FY 2017-18 it was observed that 3 project offices (MCDP, BCDP, RCDP) were established in AJ&K to look after the City Development Projects under Chinese loan. The project offices were closed on 31st Oct. 2017 and shifted to ERRA HQ Islamabad whereas the bank accounts of these projects in AJK (operational + Development) were still operative showing an amount of Rs. 222.805 million as closing balances as detailed below:

S. No. Project Office Nature of Bank account Account No. Balance as on 30.06.2018 1 MCDP Muzaffarabad Operational 4007130416 212,171 2 MCDP Muzaffarabad Development 4007130854 203,846,682 3 BCDP Bagh 2501-5 613,246 4 BCDP Bagh 2783-4 7,580,934 5 RCDP Rawalakot 2548-4 138,752 6 RCDP Rawalakot 2827-6 10,412,879 Total 222,804,664 2

The matter was pointed out on 18th October 2018. The management in its reply dated 22nd November 2018 stated that the process of closure of bank accounts is already initiated and closure formalities are being met before final closing of the bank accounts. The DAC in its meeting dated 04.12.2018 directed that the Bank Accounts of closed Projects (CDPs) be properly closed under intimation to audit. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the bank accounts be closed and remaining balances be transferred to ERRA (HQ), Islamabad under intimation to audit.

(OS No. 05) 1.1.3 Irregular expenditure in excess of budgetary allocation - Rs. 529.811 million Articles 78 & 79 of constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides that all moneys received by or on behalf of the Federal Government shall be credited to the public account of the federation and all matters connected with or ancillary to the matters appraised shall be regulated by act of parliament or, until provision in that behalf is so made, by rules made by the president. Article 80 of the constitution of Pakistan further provides that the Federal government shall in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before the National Assembly a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Federal government for that year. Rule 66 of GFR states that all estimates of revenue and expenditure included in the budget are for the financial year. Para 25 of ERRA Accounting Procedure 2006 provides that the expenditure shall be incurred against specific budgetary allocations and the budget released by the Ministry of Finance. No re-appropriation of funds shall be made except with the specific approval of the competent authority During certification audit, it was observed that ERRA expended an amount of Rs. 3,899.314 million against budgetary allocation of Rs. 3,369.503 million resulting into an excess expenditure of Rs. 529.811 million which was met out of non- budgetary resources i.e. ERRA Fund. 3

Audit is of the view that the expenditure in excess of the budget allocation was not-voted and met out of miscellaneous receipts in extra budget resources (ERRA Fund), which were not deposited in Government Treasury during previous years to become a part of Federal Consolidated Fund. Further, the expenditure was not booked in AGPR. The matter was pointed out on 18th October 2018. The management in its reply dated 22nd November 2018 stated that due to non-release of 3rd and 4th tranches by GOP, salaries and some obligatory expenditure was made out of ERRA fund account. The DAC in its meeting dated 04.12.2018 directed preparation of SOPs for operating ERRA Fund Account including booking of Public Account expenditure. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends to implement the decision of the DAC and the irregular expenditure over and above the budgetary allocation be got regularized besides preparation and approval of regulations /SOPs for ERRA fund account.

(OS No.12) 1.1.4 Non-deposit of Government taxes and duties - Rs. 2,063.106 million According to Para 38(a) of ERRA Accounting Procedure, Cross Cheques on account of recovery of income tax deducted at source from the suppliers / contractors etc. shall be forwarded by the DDO to the respective income tax commissioner / income tax officer. During certification audit it was observed that MCDP, BCDP, RCDP, PMIU SFD/KF AJK and PMIU IDB/SFD Abbottabad offices deducted Rs. 2,063.106 million from the bills of Chinese and other contractors on account of Taxes and duties but the taxes deducted were not deposited into Government Treasury which resulted into creation of tax liabilities. The detail is as under: S. No. Office Description Amount (Rs.) 1 MCDP - AJK Taxes 1,035,327,000 2 BCDP - AJK Taxes 600,800,000 3 RCDP - AJK Taxes 171,420,000 4 PMIU- SFD/KF AJK Taxes 144,686,429 5 PMIU IDB/SFD KPK-IDB Taxes 37,771,900 6 PMIU IDB/SFD KPK- SFD Taxes 73,101,000 2,063,106,329 4

The management replied that matter would be taken up with FBR for non- deposit in respect of Chinese loan contracts / contractors. In addition, arrangement has been made with the contractor of SFD, KF & IDB fund portion that they themselves pay the due taxes in treasury and to provide the proof. DAC in its meeting dated 04.12.2018 directed that the matter regarding Chinese loan, tax liability be taken up with the FBR. As regard to SFD, KF & IDB arrangement has been made with the recipients of the payment (contractors) to pay the taxes themselves and provide the proof of deposit to Audit. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends the decision of the DAC be implemented besides tax liability to be deposited into government treasury under intimation to Audit.

(OS No.16) 1.1.5 Non-Recovery of Government taxes from the contractors of the foreign aided projects - Rs. 252.966 million Clause 22 of the contract agreement signed with the contractor for Saudi funded projects provides that the contractor shall be liable to pay income tax accruing out of the contract. The rates and prices as stated in the contract shall be deemed to cover all such taxes. ERRA vide its letter No. 4/ERRA/2012/SPC dated 20.05.2013 issued policy / guideline to its subordinate offices that taxes will not be deducted from the bills / payments of the contractor and withdrawal application / bill of full amount will be sent to donor for onward payment to the contractor and the contractor himself shall deposit the due taxes in the government treasury. Next IPC of the contractor will not be processed until the deposit documents of taxes for last IPC processed are produced by the contractor. During Certification Audit, it was observed that different projects under ERRA were running through foreign aid of Saudi and Kuwait Governments (foreign aided projects). An amount of Rs. 3,613.800 million was paid to different contractors directly by donors through withdrawal applications during the financial year 2017-18. As per contract clause-22, income tax @ 7% was required to be deducted from the contractor’s bills. Further, in the light of ERRA policy / guideline that the contractor 5 himself will deposit the due taxes into the treasury, tax due was not deducted from the contractor’s bills and withdrawal applications of gross amount inclusive of taxes were forwarded to donor banks for payment to the contractor. However, no tax was deposited by the contractor in the treasury as no proof of the same was provided to audit. The detail of taxes recoverable from the contractors is as under:

S. No. Name of Contractor Amount paid FY Income Tax due but not 2017-18 (Rs.) Tax Rate recovered (Rs.) 1 M/s Siyah Kaleem (AJK) 2,385,768,051 7% 167,003,764 2 M/s Siyah Kaleem (AJK) 488,297,076 7% 34,180,795 3 M/s Al-Teraz 270,395,930 7% 18,927,715 4 M/s Electro Zone 119,641,026 7% 8,374,872 5 M/s Ghulam Sadiq 107,647,319 7% 7,535,312 6 M/s Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Ltd. 107,803,711 7% 7,546,260 7 M/s Kingcrete Builders 12,673,291 7% 887,130 8 M/s Pak UK Abdali (JV) 3,782,062 7% 264,744 9 M/s Sambu 51,051,789 7% 3,573,625 10 M/s Shaukat Khan Company – 6,155,790 430,905 7% Galaxy Star Construction (JV) 11 M/s Ziauddin Ahmed Pvt. Ltd. 22,545,746 7% 1,578,202 12 M/s Alove Construction 8,698,668 7% 608,907 13 M/s Ascent 29,339,084 7% 2,053,736 Total 3,613,799,543 252,965,967 Thus due to non-deduction of taxes, the same are recoverable from the contractors The matter was pointed out to management on 18th October 2018. The management replied that arrangement has been made with the contractors of SFD, KF & IDB fund portion that they themselves may deposit the income tax in treasury. The DAC in its meeting dated 04.12.2018 decided that the contractors would deposit income tax and provide its evidences to Audit. No proof regarding deposit of taxes was produced to Audit for verification till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that income tax from the contractors be recovered and deposited into Government treasury.

(OS No.17)

Chapter-2 Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)

2.1 Introduction of Authority On 8th October, 2005, the earthquake caused severe damage and massive loss of life and assets in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the State of AJ&K. Geographically, five Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Abbottabad, Mansehra, Battagram, Shangla, and Kohistan) and four districts of AJ&K (Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Rawalakot and Poonch) were severely affected. Immediately after the earthquake, the Federal Relief Commission was established on 10th October 2005 to mobilize all resources and coordinate relief activities. Thereafter, on 24th October 2005, the Government of Pakistan established Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA), which took over all the activities from the Federal Relief Commissioner on 31st March, 2006. ERRA started its activities with its mission to “Plan, coordinate, monitor and regulate reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in the earthquake affected areas, encouraging self-reliance through private public partnership and community participation and ensuring financial transparencies”. 2.2 Comments on Budget & Accounts (Variance Analysis) (Rs. in million) Financial Grant No. Final budget Actual release Difference Expenditure Year / receipt ID3840 (Govt.) 302.112 302.112 - 302.112 ID4029 (Govt.) 4,500.000 3,067.391 1,432.609 3,597.202 2017-18 Total (Govt.) 4,802.112 3,369.503 1,432.609 3,899.314 Third Party Payments 3,000.000 3,401.569 401.569 3,401.569 The overall difference between final budget and actual release was because less funds were released from the Government during the financial year 2017-18. The excess expenditure from the receipt as highlighted was due to an amount of Rs. 529.811 million spent from ERRA Fund Account to meet the deficit. 2.3 Brief comments on the status of compliance with PAC directives Since inception of ERRA, ten audit reports on the accounts of ERRA have been finalized, out of which three reports pertaining to the year 2005-06, 2009-10 and 7

2013-14 were discussed in the PAC. Current status of compliance with PAC directives for reports discussed so far, is given below:

S. Audit Report Total Compliance Percentage of Compliance not received No. Year Paras received Compliance 1 ERRA 2005-06 44 43 01 97.73 2 ERRA 2009-10 49 46 03 93.87 3 ERRA 2013-14 21 06 15 28.57

2.4 AUDIT PARAS Irregularity & Non Compliance 2.4.1 Re-appropriation of funds from restricted heads - Rs. 2.541 million As per System of Financial Control and Budgeting No.F.3(2) Exp. III/2006 dated 13th September 2006, the powers of re-appropriation of funds shall be exercised by the Financial Adviser except re-appropriation from and to or within the employees related expenses and from utility charges which shall be submitted by the Financial Advisor to AFS(E) for approval. General instructions of revised system and financial budget and control 2006 II (b) provide that no re-appropriation may be made: from to, or within the Employees Related Expenses, from Operating Expenses- Communication-Telephone & Trunk Calls, Telex, Tele-printer & FAX, Electronic Communication; Utilities: Gas, Water, Electricity; Secret Service Expenditure, Unforeseen Expenditure for Disaster Preparedness & Relief and Occupancy Costs. The management of ERRA made re-appropriations as detailed below, during the financial year 2017-18 contrary to the provisions of Revised System of Financial Control and Budgeting 2006.

S. Object Head Amount S. Object Head Amount No. (Rs.) No. (Rs.) A A012-2 Other A A012-2 Other Allowances Allowances Overtime 1,217,967 Pay contingent staff 2,541,958 Honorarium 749,355 Medical Charges 574,635 Management in their reply dated 30.08.2018 stated that an amount of Rs. 302.112 million was allocated on account of non-development budget for the FY 2017-18. ERRA, being statutory autonomous body, is given lump sum budget under five major heads. However, PAO approves bifurcation of funds under minor heads. This bifurcation is an internal arrangement which does not require the approval of the Financial Advisor.

During discussion meeting dated 31.08.2018, ERRA assured that such re- appropriations will be avoided in future and matter will be taken up with Financial Advisor for guidance. In the DAC meeting held on 3rd December 2019 it was decided that Para stands as no progress had been made. Audit recommends that such irregularities be avoided in future. Further, matter be regularized from the competent authority.

(PDP No. 1098, ERRA Non-Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.2 Non-renewal of allotment of land on license basis for ERRA Building - Rs. 34.848 million According to Para 3 of letter No. CDA/DMA/MF-8(213)/20071574 dated 24.09.2007, the license is valid only for a period of (03) years. After completion of three years, the licensee is bound to hand-over the peaceful possession of site to the Authority. The management of ERRA made payment of Rs. 34.848 million to CDA on account of Rent of land on which office building of ERRA has been constructed @ Rs. 4.356 million per annum for a period of 8 years. The CDA allotted 5 acres land on Murree Road, Islamabad to ERRA (HQ), Islamabad on license basis for 3 years w.e.f 24.09.2007. The allotment expired on September 2010 but the allotment was not renewed from CDA. Audit is of the view that non-renewal of allotment despite lapse of 8 years is violation of allotment letter and CDA rule. Furthermore, the security deposit paid (if any) to CDA may be forfeited in adjustment of increased rent. In their reply dated 30th August 2018, the management stated that CDA allotted land of 5 acers for ERRA Office building on “License basis” (on 29.09.2007) after approval of CDA Board @ Rs. 363,000 per month as rent. ERRA constructed a customized building on the plot at the cost of Rs. 191.330 million. In the discussion meeting dated 31st August 2018, ERRA assured that efforts will be made for renewal of lease agreement (license).

DAC meeting held on 3rd December 2019 decided that efforts be made to resolve the matter at the earliest under intimation to Audit. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the matter be taken up with CDA on priority basis for renewal/ extension of license.

(PDP No. 1103, ERRA Non-Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.3 Irregular payment of allowances to army personnel - Rs. 2.770 million As per JSI 4/85-case No.F-2/70/D-24, (C-IV)/83, ASMF Dy. No. 164 / S / ASMF/ of 1985 “The deputationists will be entitled to pay of rank, Command / Staff / Charge Pay, Instructional Pay, Qualification pay, Flying Pay/Submarine Pay / Special Service Group pay/Technical pay/ Disturbance pay, Kit Allowance and Non- Practicing Allowance drawn by them in the Military service immediately before their secondment in addition to 20% of pay of the rank as special compensatory allowance”. Contrary to the above, it was observed that Army Personnel, as detailed at Annexure-II, were drawing allowances not admissible as per above mentioned JSI. Thus, overpayment of Rs. 2.770 million was made to the Army Personnel which may be recovered and deposited into Government Treasury. In their reply dated 30.08.2018 the management stated that Army Personnel are supposed to be ready according to the Army Code of Conduct and to perform any additional assignment ordered by the GHQ etc. at any time during their stay at ERRA. Objected allowances were paid as per usual term & conditions of the deputation. The referred JSI has not limited the allowed Pay & Allowances to only pay of rank, Command / Staff / Charge Pay, Instructional Pay, Qualification pay, Flying Pay / Submarine Pay / Special Service Group pay / Technical pay / Disturbance pay, Kit Allowance and Non-Practicing Allowance. In discussion meeting dated 31.08.2018 it was decided that clarification may be sought from MAG office regarding admissibility of different allowances to Army Personnel’s on Secondment under intimation to Audit.

During verification, Joint Services Instruction (scanned copy) dated 22.12.1986 was provided to substantiate the view point of ERRA. DAC meeting held on 3rd December 2019 decided that an authenticated copy of the Joint Services Instruction (JSI) dated 22.12.1986 would be obtained from PPA Directorate, GHQ and provided to Audit. Authenticated copy of JSI dated 22.12.1986 was not provided for verification till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the authenticated copy of the JSI dated 22.12.1986 duly endorsed by MAG / PPA Directorate, GHQ be obtained and provided to Audit. Otherwise, overpayment pointed out be recovered from the concerned officials.

(PDP No. 1107, ERRA Non-Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.4 Irregular allotment of vehicle to contract staff – Rs. 2.351 million According to Govt. of Pakistan Finance Division (Regulation wing) office memorandum No. F.4(9) R-14/2008 dated 19th July 2017 para 2(x) no additional facility, in addition to the revised Standard Pay Package, shall be admissible for PSDP projects’ employees. According to Rule 10 (i) of GFR volume I & II, every public officer is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money. The management of ERRA made payment on account of POL and repair of vehicles amounting to Rs. 2.351 million during the financial year 2017-18. Audit observed that:  The vehicles allotted to the staff drawing pay and allowance from Development budget, which is against the rules.  The vehicles were allotted to the contract employees appointed on lump sum pay package as detailed at Annexure-III. Audit holds the view that allotment of vehicles to contract employees drawing lump sum pay package is irregular.

In their reply dated 30th August 2018, the management stated that as a result of similar audit objection, ERRA Board in its 15th meeting held on April 28, 2010 agreed the use of official vehicles by the contract employees. The amount equal to conveyance allowance i.e. Rs. 2,450 per month as enhanced to Rs. 5,000 per month is being regularly recovered from contract employees as per ERRA Board decision till date. In discussion meeting dated 31st August 2018, ERRA maintained that matter will be referred to ERRA Board for speaking decision regarding use/allocation of vehicles to contract employees. However, Audit recommended that the practice be stopped forthwith besides recovery of POL and repair charges. DAC meeting held on 3rd December 2019 decided that the case be referred to ERRA Board for decision. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the practice be stopped forthwith besides referring the matter to ERRA Board or otherwise amount pointed out be recovered from the employees concerned.

(PDP No. 1117, ERRA Non-Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.5 Non deposit of receipts into government treasury – Rs. 14.588 million According to revised procedure for operation of assignment, account of Federal Government issued by the Finance Division dated 24.09.2008, the officers holding Assignment Account will ensure that no money is drawn from these accounts unless it is required for immediate disbursement. Money will not be drawn for deposit into chest or any bank account. As per Para 26 of ERRA Accounting Procedure, the receipts if any generated by the Authority shall be the receipts of the government and shall be deposited in the government treasury on the same day, and if received after banking hours, on the next working day. The management of ERRA is operating two lapsable assignment accounts one for development and other for non-development budget. Any unspent balance at the end of the year requires to be lapsed. The government releases annual funds for

13 development and non-development expenditure of the authority in these assignment accounts. Audit observed that any unspent amount returned to ERRA, recovery of over payments and receipts of sale of bidding document were being deposited into ERRA fund account. Audit observed that ERRA received an amount of Rs. 14.588 million from different sources and deposited into ERRA Fund account as detailed below:

Sr. No. Description Amount (Rs.) Remarks Expenditure booked & incurred out of assignment account but unspent balances, recovery of

Miscellaneous over payment and receipts on 1. 4,461,299 Receipts in ERRA Fund account account of sale of bidding

document deposited into ERRA fund account. (detail is given at Annexure-IV) Donation 6,773,200 Donations Received from 2. Brunei Darus Salam Misc. receipts from PERRA 2,667,358 Misc. Receipts from PERRA 3. office. Recoupment of expenditure from ERRA 686,512 Different recoveries in ERRA 4. (HQ) deposited in ERRA Fund. Total 14,588,369 Audit holds that the deposit of receipts into authority’s own ERRA Fund Account is contrary to the stated rules, and needs to be deposited into government treasury under intimation to audit. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018. The management in its reply dated 3rd September 2018 stated that ERRA may retain the receipts under the provision of ERRA financial rules. The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 decided that the Para stands till decision from the Finance Division. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that regulations/ SOPs clearly identifying the source of receipts and mode of expenditure be prepared by ERRA, duly approved from Finance Division. Until that, all receipts be deposited into Govt. treasury.

(PDP No. 1076, ERRA HQ, Dev. Fund 2017-18) 14

2.4.6 Irregular expenditure from ERRA Fund Account - Rs. 827.198 million As per para 14.2.3 of APPM, no authority shall incur expenditure from the public account unless it is sanctioned under the governing act, order or the regulation for the particular trust account or special deposit account. Article 80 of the constitution of Pakistan provides that the Federal government shall in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before the National Assembly a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Federal government for that year. Rule 66 of GFR states that all estimates of revenue and expenditure included in the budget are for the financial year. As per Para 25 of ERRA Accounting Procedure 2006, the expenditure shall be incurred against specific budgetary allocations and the budget released by the Ministry of Finance. No re-appropriation of funds shall be made except with the specific approval of the competent authority. According to Section 15 (1) of ERRA Act 2011, there shall be established a fund for reconstruction and rehabilitation to be known as the ERRA fund which shall vest in and be utilized by the Authority to meet the expenses and carry out the objectives of this Act. Section 27 & 28 of ERRA Act further provides that the Council and the Board may make Rules and Regulations for carrying out the purpose of Act. The management of ERRA opened ERRA Fund Account with the approval of Finance Division. ERRA was required to formulate regulations and procedures to operate that Account. However, the operating procedure was not formulated. Audit observed that the management incurred an expenditure of Rs. 827.198 million (Annexure-V) out of ERRA Fund account during the financial year 2017-18 on different kind of non-development / operational activities i.e. POL, TA, entertainment charges, misc. expenditure etc. which were to be met out of regular budget. Audit holds that due to non-formulation of Regulations for operation of ERRA Fund Account, the whole expenditure incurred stands irregular.

The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018. The management in its reply dated 3rd September 2018 stated that ERRA Fund account is being operated on the principles of assignment account. The reply is not convincing as the procedures of assignment account are not applicable to Fund Account. Further, in each financial year ERRA transfer funds from lapsable assignment account to ERRA fund account in violation of finance division instructions and revised procedure of assignment account. In addition, Federal Government also releases annual funds to ERRA through assignment account to meet all of its annual development and non-development expenditure. The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 decided that the Para stands till preparation of SOP for operation of ERRA Fund Account. No further progress towards preparation of SOP was intimated. Audit recommends that regulations to operate the ERRA Fund account to identify its sources of receipt and scheme / category of expenditure be prepared and approved from Finance Division.

(PDP No. 1077, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.7 Un-authorized withdrawal out of Chinese loan and deposit into ERRA Fund Account – Rs. 314.811 million Rule 96 of GFR provides that it is contrary to the interest of the State that money should be spent hastily or in an ill-considered manner merely because it is available or that the laps of a grant could be avoided. In the public interest, grants that cannot be profitably utilized should be surrendered. The existence of likely savings should not be seized as an opportunity for introducing fresh items of expenditure which might wait till next year. Rule 290 of FTR provides that no money shall be drawn from the treasury unless it is required for immediate disbursement. It is not permissible to draw money from the treasury in anticipation of demands or to prevent the lapse of budget grants. Para 26 of ERRA Accounting Procedure provides that the receipts if any generated by the authority shall be the receipts of the government and shall be deposited in the government treasury on the same day, and if received after banking hours, on the next working day. 16

As per umbrella PC-I of Chinese loan, the cost of establishment of PMU (Personnel and equipment), Consultancy Services @ 2% of civil works cost and security for Chinese construction companies was to be borne by the government of Pakistan. An amount of Rs. 314.811 million was deposited into ERRA Fund Account during the FY 2017-18 on account of withdrawal made out of Chinese loan through the Chinese contractor’s bills for Chinese security and consultancy services as per the decision taken in 26th meeting of Program Steering Committee for AJK Urban Development Program agenda item No. 04. The payments had previously made out of GoP budget. Audit holds that the withdrawal of funds from Chinese loan on account of Security and Consultancy Charges which had already been paid out of GOP fund is in violation of Umbrella PC-I and thus unauthorized. Further Consultancy services and security services were provided by M/s NESPAK and Police Department of AJK respectively which were paid by ERRA out of GOP funds. Hence, any withdrawal from loan on this account and depositing in ERRA Fund Account is violation of rules mentioned above. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018. The management in its reply dated 22nd November 2018 stated that 85% portion of Urban Development Projects was being paid out of Chinese loan and 15% by ERRA out of GOP fund. Due to shortage of GoP funds, it was decided in 26th Program Steering Committee’s meeting that cost of Chinese security and consultancy services be recovered out of Chinese loan. The recovery was deposited into ERRA fund account as decided in 20th ERRA Board meeting. The cost of consultancy services was not paid in full and there was an accrued liability and later on being paid out of funds recovered from Chinese loan. The reply is not acceptable as the withdrawal of funds from Chinese loan on account of Security and Consultancy Charges had already been paid out of GoP fund is in violation of Umbrella PC-I. Further, Consultancy and Security services were provided by M/s NESPAK and Police Department of AJK respectively, which were paid out of GoP funds. Hence, any withdrawal from loan on this account, needs to be deposited into Government treasury.

The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 decided that the para stands till regularization from the competent authority. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the irregularity be got regularized from the competent authority.

(PDP No. 1079, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.8 Unauthorized expenditure without approval and splitting of PC-1 – Rs. 100.548 million According to the Para-3.7 of guidelines for development projects issued by Planning Commission, the PC-1 should be approved from the competent forum before incurring any expenditure. The management of ERRA prepared two separate PC-1s for project supervision and project monitoring respectively. Audit observed that since inception of ERRA, various donor agencies i.e. UNDP, World Bank and ADB etc. extended their financial support in the shape of credits / loans / grants to augment capacity of the organization for smooth and efficient implementation of the reconstruction and rehabilitation programs. In past, a PC-1 for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the development projects was prepared and monitoring and supervision staff was hired. However, with the passage of time, these financial agreements exhausted due to completion of their prescribed period of validity. Donor agencies closed their financial support likely in the year 2012-13. The recurring expenditure on account of support staff, therefore, had to be shifted towards GOP fund. Since then this PC-1 for M&E was split into two PC-1s; one for project monitoring and other for project supervision team to avoid obtaining approval of the higher competent forum. Further, an expenditure on Rs. 100.881 million during the financial year 2017-18 under different PC-1s for development purposes but the PC-1s were not approved from the competent forum. S. Cost of PC-1 Expenditure during Description No. (Rs. in million) FY 2017-18 (Rs.) 1 PC-1 of special project cell ERRA 162.110 6591930 2 PC-1 project supervision team ERRA 334.000 35015999 3 PC-1 project monitoring team ERRA 368.043 59272838 TOTAL 100,880,767 18

Audit is of the view that incurrence of expenditure without prior approval of the PC-1 from the competent forum is irregular. Audit holds that splitting of PC-1 to avoid the process of obtaining approval from higher forum is irregular. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018. The management in its reply dated 22nd November 2018 stated that revised approval of PC-I’s is under process and will be provided to Audit as and when approved by ERRA Board. The role of M&E was revised in 2014 to include the additional task of supervisory consultancy of ERRA Projects in Earthquake affected areas in AJK and KPK. Being different in nature the PC-I’s were accordingly prepared and renamed as PMT and PST which was duly approved by the competent authority. The reply is not convincing as the functions of Monitoring and Evaluation are being carried out by splitting the PC-Is under different names i.e. PC-I for M&E, PST, PMT etc. to avoid the approval of the competent forum. The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 decided that the Para stands till the record in support of management’s view is produced for verification. No record was produced to Audit till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented. Besides, one PC-1 for the purpose be prepared and got approved from the competent forum.

(PDP No. 1082, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.9 Non obtaining of vouched accounts for releases made to NHA – Rs. 158.340 million Para 668 of FTR Vol-I provides that the grant released for departmental or allied purposes is subject to adjustment by submission of detailed accounts supported by vouchers or refund. According to Para 17(a) of ERRA Accounting Procedure, the Government organization i.e. NHA, FWO, WAPDA, IESCO receiving ERRA fund shall be responsible for the preparation of accounts, on monthly basis, in respect of the project entrusted to them, in such form/format as may be required by the ERRA. The accounts shall be submitted to ERRA on such dates as may be fixed by the ERRA.

ERRA released an amount of Rs. 158.340 million to NHA during the FY 2017-18. Contrary to above, monthly accounts in respect of releases showing vouched accounts of the expenditure incurred and balance of releases at the end were not submitted by NHA. This may lead to the understatement of closing balances and overstatement of expenditures in the consolidated financial statements as well as in the appropriation account for the financial year 2017-18. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018. The management in its reply dated 3rd September 2018 stated that NHA has been requested time and again but vouched accounts have not been provided. Efforts are being made for early receipts of vouched accounts. The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 decided that the Para stands till obtaining of vouchers from NHA. Audit recommends that the vouched accounts be obtained from NHA for all releases made and balance amount, if any, be recovered under intimation to audit and financial statements be revised accordingly.

(PDP No. 1084, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.10 Non-preparation and submission of six monthly report to Senate and National Assembly as required under ERRA Act 2011 Article 5(i) of ERRA Act 2011 provides that ERRA may perform the function to keep the two Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) informed of its activities through six monthly reports of its performance for discussion. During the course of audit the six monthly performance reports on ERRA activities for the year 2017-18 which was required to be submitted to the lower and upper houses of Parliament by the ERRA, were demanded but the same were not produced to Audit. The management of ERRA did not prepare such kind of reports to disclose its performance to Parliament as required under the Act. Non-preparation and non-submission of six monthly activity reports is contrary to the provision of ERRA Act and non-compliance of the statutory requirement.

The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018, 13.09.2018 and 03.10.2018 but no reply was given by the management. No DAC meeting was arranged till finalization of the report. Audit recommends that the necessary reports be prepared and submitted to both houses for requisite actions at their end besides provision of the same to audit, to fulfill its statuary obligation.

(PDP No. 1085, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.11 Over payment of salaries to contract employees - Rs. 20.964 million Finance Division regulations wing notification No. F.4 (9) R-14/2008 dated 19.07.2017 provides that contract employees directly recruited from open market for execution of the development projects will be paid lump sum fixed salaries as per the project pay scales and basic pay scales given in revised standard pay package. Adoption of standard pay package-2017 shall require revision / approval of PC-1 from competent forum. No additional facility, in addition to the revised standard pay package, shall be admissible for PSDP project employees. According to the clarification issued through establishment division’s O. M No. 10/67/2004-R-2 dated 21.06.2005, “Those retired government servants selected on merit, who compete with others from the private sector for appointment against project positions on the basis of open competition should be entitled to the packages, perks and privileges laid down for that positions in the projects”. ERRA paid salaries to the contract employees higher than the Project Pay Scales given in standard pay package-2017. Further, the pay package of retired government servants was not fixed as per policy of Establishment Division issued vide O.M. No. 10/67/2004-R-2 dated 21.06.2005 or as revised from time to time. Payment of salaries higher than the equivalent PPS and BPS resulted into over payments of Rs. 20.964 million to the contractual staff as detailed at Annexure-VI. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018, 13.09.2018 and 03.10.2018 but no reply was given by the management. No DAC meeting was arranged till finalization of the report.

Audit recommends that pay package of the contract staff either from open market or retired government servants needs to be re-fixed and over payment of salaries be recovered from the concerned under intimation to audit.

(PDP No. 1086, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.12 Non deposit of recovery from Chinese contractor into government treasury - Rs. 8.00 million As per Para 26 of ERRA Accounting Procedure, the receipts if any generated by the Authority shall be the receipts of the government and shall be deposited in the government treasury on the same day, and if received after banking hours, on the next working day. ERRA deposited an amount of Rs. 8.00 million in ERRA fund account of the authority for settlement of external audit Advance Para No. 953. External audit during the audit of RCDP for the FY 2015-16 had pointed out that the Chinese contractor M/s CXB had claimed an amount of Rs. 8.452 million twice/double in the contract of Anayat Bakery to Chak Airport road. Project office recovered the amount from the Chinese contractor vide cross cheque No.01101015 dated 06.05.2018 and deposited into ERRA fund account. Audit holds that since the payment was made to the Chinese contractor out of Chinese loan through withdrawal application, hence, any recovery of over payment was to be adjusted from the contractor’s running and final bill, and if, recovery was made from the contractor in cash that should have been deposited into government treasury. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018 but no reply was given by the management. The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 directed to keep the Para pended till preparation of SOP for operation of ERRA Fund Account. No progress towards preparation of SOP for operation of ERRA Fund Account was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that decision of the DAC be implemented.

(PDP No. 1087, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 22

2.4.13 Irregular preparation and approval of capacity building PC-1 - Rs. 87.189 million Para 4.4 of manual of development projects issued by Planning Commission provides that the financial schedule must be included in the PC-I and linked with the implementation schedule. The sponsoring agency should satisfy the approving authority as to how the proposed financial requirements of the project will be adjusted in the Plan. Para 4.14 states that the cost estimates of a project have to be prepared with a lot of care so that these are not revised again and again and implementation is not delayed due to non-availability of provision of funds and revised sanction of the competent authority. Para 4.16 provides that the sponsoring agency has to indicate the financial plan of the project in the appropriate column of the PC-I. The position in this regard has to be indicated in specific terms so that there remains no ambiguity or confusion in getting the necessary funds from the sources indicated. Para 4.17 provides that the financial phasing of a project is to be given for each financial year related to the physical work proposed to be undertaken, keeping in view the implementation of similar projects in the past. It should be as realistic as possible. Para 4.18 further provides that the scope of work to be carried out should be gone into very thoroughly to facilitate physical and financial phasing as well as supervision. Para 4.19 further provides that the time calculated for the completion of the project should be on a realistic basis. The factors like total allocation, expected allocations in the PSDP, time to be taken in preparing the detailed design(s), invitation of tenders and award of contract(s) and all other relevant factors will have to be taken into consideration to firm up the implementation period: The implementation schedule should be based on Bar Charts/PERT/CPM and should essentially form part of every project document. Para 4.28 of the manual states that, the implementation schedule should be based on the Bar Chart/PERT/CPM as decided by the National Economic Council. This decision of the NEC needs to be strictly followed by the sponsoring agencies

23 while preparing the project on the PC-I. This is essential for the proper physical and financial phasing of the project. Para-14(2) of ERRA Operational Manual provides that Board may approve a project costing upto Rs. 500 million. If the cost of the project is more than Rs. 500 million, the Board may recommend it to ECNEC for approval. PC-1 titled “Capacity Building (ERRA Headquarters)” for an estimated cost of Rs. 87.189 million was approved by Deputy Chairman ERRA for the FY 2017-18. Period of implementation was one year i.e. FY 2017-18 and funding sources was GOP. ERRA incurred an expenditure of Rs. 83.990 million during the year. The objective of the PC-1 as to ensure consistent support to ERRA Headquarters, in different areas/ sectors, for effective planning, implementation and supervision of reconstruction activities in the earthquake affected areas by increasing its capacity in identified facets/ selected components. Total 116 personnel shall be required for the project. Following major components were to be supported / financed under the said project: i. capacity building and operational cost in general ii. Human resource Cell iii. Urban development iv. Management information system (MIS) v. Knowledge management cell vi. Security of ERRA HQ premises Since inception of ERRA, various donor agencies i.e. UNDP, World Bank and ADB etc. extended their financial support in the shape of credits/loans/grants to augment capacity of the organization for smooth and efficient implementation of the reconstruction and rehabilitation programs. However, with the passage of time, these financial agreements exhausted due to completion of their prescribed period of validity. The recurring expenditure on account of support staff, therefore, had to be shifted towards GOP fund. Audit observed that most of the donor agencies closed their financial support in the year 2012. Since then, PC-1 for Capacity Building of ERRA HQ began to be prepared against GOP funds and get it approved from Deputy Chairman.

Audit holds that the PC-1 was directly linked with the reconstruction projects launched in the earthquake affected areas which were time bound projects, hence, it should have been prepared for a stipulated time period and cost instead of annual basis through linking it with those projects. The matter was pointed out on 17th August 2018. The management in its reply dated 3rd September 2018 stated that no estimated time could be provided for completion of the projects. The DAC in its meeting held on 4th December 2019 decided that Para stands till finalization of rules. No further progress was intimated till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the rules be expedited. Besides, the PC-1 should be prepared on estimated time period of completion with complete cost impact by linking it with civil works projects under ERRA, and the cost already incurred either from GOP or from foreign component should also be incorporated therein.

(PDP No. 1089, ERRA Dev. Fund 2017-18) 2.4.14 Inadmissible payment on account of General Items - Rs. 60.444 million Clause B-5 (i) of Umbrella Contract Agreement provides that the rate analysis of each item provided in the BOQs shall be worked out on the basis of prices of labour, material and equipment given in a mutually agreed composite schedule of rates. 25% of this amount shall be added for the contractor’s design, overhead cost and profit. Muzaffarabad City Development Project (MCDP) paid an amount of Rs. 60.444 million to the Chinese contractors on account of general items which included: i. Site superintendence establishment including site office, stores and maintenance yard etc. ii. Test charges, survey instrument maintenance and approval iii. Safety measures iv. Environment protection facilities and activities The detail of General items paid to the contractors is as under: 25

S. Name of contract IPC No. Upto date No. payment (Rs.) 1 GGHS Narrul FPC-16 4,532,990 2 RCC Bridge Jalalabad Muzaffarabad 24th SAC 15,697,536 3 Thotha Bridge Muzaffarabad 19th SAC 17,494,229 4 Satellite town Thotha Muzaffarabad 11 FPC 22,719,651 Total 60,444,406 Audit observed that General items were paid without supporting vouchers. Further, as per Clause B-5(i) of Umbrella Contract Agreement, these general items were covered under 25% of contractor’s design, overhead cost and profit. The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that provision of General Items was kept in the BOQs as per the approval granted by 28th PSC and the Contract Agreement signed with the Chinese Contractors. Payment was made to the contractors accordingly. The reply is not acceptable as the payment made is contrary to the provisions of Umbrella contract. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 decided that Para stands. Audit recommends that additional payment on account of General Items be recovered from the contractor or person(s) responsible.

(PDP No. 1122, MCDP 2017-18) 2.4.15 Overpayment on account of difficulty factor to the contractor – Rs. 7.180 million Clause B-5 (i) of Umbrella Contract Agreement provides that the rate analysis of each item provided in the BOQs shall be worked out on the basis of prices of labour, material and equipment given in a mutually agreed composite schedule of rates. 25% of this amount shall be added for the contractor’s design, overhead cost and profit. The Statement at Completion (SAC - 24th bill) of the project, Jalalabad Bridge Muzaffarabad, revealed that an amount of Rs. 7.180 million was paid to the contractor on account of difficulty factor @ 2% of the contract cost due to site peculiar conditions. The record revealed that in 15th meeting of the Program Steering Committee (PSC) for AJK Urban Development Program held on 13th April 2012, the 26

Project Director MCDP presented the total cost of the project amounting to Rs. 356.681 million along with the breakup. The total cost was inclusive of a pay item of difficulty factor at the rate of 2% on all items of work. The Program Steering Committee accorded administrative approval of the project at a cost of Rs. 356.681 million including 2% difficulty factor due to site peculiar conditions. Resultantly, an additional payment of Rs. 7.180 million (@ 2% on all items of work) was made to the contractor. Audit holds that the rates included in original BOQ (presented to PSC) were worked out in rate analysis by incorporating market rates of material, labour, equipment and 25% profit & overhead charges of the contractor as agreed upon in the umbrella contract agreement. Hence, additional payment in the name of difficulty factor after rates are agreed is un-justified / irregular being against the provisions of Umbrella Contract. The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that the BOQs of RCC Bridge, Jalalabad was approved by PSC in its 15th meeting held on 13 April 2012. The forum also brought difficulty factor into consideration as requested by the contractor M/s CXB and approved the project cost with inclusion of 2% difficult factor. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 decided that Para stands. Audit recommends that the overpayment be recovered from the contractor or the person(s) responsible and deposit into the Govt. treasury under intimation to audit.

(PDP No. 1123, MCDP 2017-18) 2.4.16 Overpayment on account of Shuttering and scaffolding – Rs. 3.554 million Clause B-5 (i) of Umbrella Contract Agreement provides that based on the design approved by the employer, rate analysis of each item provided in the BOQ shall be worked out on the basis of prices of labour, material and equipment given in a mutually agreed Composite Schedule of Rates (CSR) as adjusted with market prices. 25% of this amount shall be added for contractor’s design, overhead costs and profit, and then Income Tax shall be added to the cost so obtained to determine the total cost of that item. 27

During audit of Muzaffarabad City Development Project it was observed that item No. 5-48 (b) “providing and laying plum concrete with 40% boulders including leveling, compacting and curing” was executed in different contracts. Rate analysis carried out by the contractor for the item revealed that composite rate of the item included some portion / amount on account of shuttering and scaffolding. A comparison of rate analysis of item with that of AJK CSR June 2009 revealed that shuttering and scaffolding was not included in the inputs of the item. Audit holds that due to inclusion of shuttering and scaffolding in the item rate (in rate analysis), the item rate increased to that extent (shuttering +scaffolding+31% profit and Income Tax). The increase in unit rate on account of shuttering and scaffolding resulted into unauthorized payment of Rs. 3.554 million as detailed below:

Rate of shuttering Qty Over S. IPC &scaffolding Name of the Project Executed Payment No. No. included in Unit (Cu.m) (Rs.) rate (Rs.) 1 Thotha bridge Muzaffarabad 19 SAC 1,004.207 541.148 543,425 2 Jalalabad bridge Muzaffarabad 24 SAC 2,109.528 1,427.271 3,010,868 Total 3,554,293 The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that the construction of Plum Concrete wall essentially requires shuttering and scaffolding, therefore, cost impact of shuttering and scaffolding is taken in BOQ item rate on the basis of inputs provided in item No. 5-48 (b) of AJK CSR June 2009. The reply is not acceptable as the shuttering and scaffolding is not included in the inputs of the item No. 5-48 (b) given in the mutually agreed AJK CSR 2009. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 decided that Para stands and copy of inquiry report be provided to Audit. Audit recommends that a copy of inquiry report be produced besides overpayment be recovered from the contractor and deposit into Govt. treasury under intimation to audit.

(PDP No. 1125, MCDP 2017-18)

2.4.17 Premature issuance of certificates and Non- imposition of LD Charges Rs. 42.291 million Clause 10.1 of the General condition of the contract agreement provides that the engineer shall issue the taking over certificate to the contractor stating the date on which the work is completed in accordance with the contract, except for any minor outstanding work and defects which will not substantially affect the use of the work for their intended purpose. Contract agreement further provides that defect liability period would be one year from the date of Taking Over Certificate and performance certificate would be issued after successful completion of the defect liability period. Para 1 of the letter of acceptance states that if the contactor is not able to complete the work in-time, employer is at liberty to impose a penalty at a 0.1% of the contract price for each day of delay in completion of the works, subject to a maximum of 5% of contract price stated in the letter of acceptance. The management of Muzaffarabad City Development Project paid an amount of Rs. 99.828 million as financial assistance advance to Chinese contractor against four contracts in December 2016 for pending/remaining work yet to be done. The advance payments were made after obtaining bank guarantees from the contractors due to closure of loan agreement date. After lapse of about two years, the contractors could not complete the works and submit IPCs for remaining work done for adjustment of advance payment. Audit observed that works costing Rs. 99.828 million were pending against the projects but completion certificates and even performance certificates were issued and performance guarantees released which is a serious irregularity. This indicates the weak financial and administrative control of the project management. Audit holds that these projects were still incomplete even after the issuance of TOC and DLP hence liquidity damages charges as stated in the agreement should have been imposed at the rate of 5% of the contract price and an amount of Rs. 42.291 million on account of LD charges be recovered from the contractor as detailed below:

(Rs. in million) Financial LD Charges Actual DLP Assistance 5% of Name & No of Contract Date of Completion Expiry advance still contract S # Contract Amount Award /TOC Date Date not adjusted price Airport to 1 Langerpura Road 248.91 19.04.2012 28.09.2014 28.09.2015 70,189,510 12.445 Got Jinnah High School, 2 Muzaffarabad 114.302 25.11.2013 30.12.2015 30.12.2016 3,881,325 5.715 Additional Access Road. 3 Domail 119.211 29.08.2013 04.02.2016 04.02.2017 10,354,415 5.960 Talhee Mandi 4 road 363.42 02.04.2010 04.09.2014 04.09.2015 15,403,060 18.171

Total 99,828,310 42.291

The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that the TOCs and Performance Certificates were issued on completion of contractual obligations by the contractor as per the approved scope of work of each of these projects. However, Financial Assistance advance of Rs. 18.664 million out of the total Rs. 99.828 million paid against these projects remained un- adjusted even after completion of approved scope of work. A committee was constituted in 36th PSC meeting for deciding about utilization of un-adjusted advance. The Committee recommended the utilization of pending balance by giving some additional works to the contractor and accordingly 37th PSC held on 28 Dec 2017 approved it. Reply of the management is not tenable as a considerable period for adjustment of advances made to the contractor has lapsed but record for its adjustment has not been produced depicting that the work is still incomplete.

The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2018 decided that Para stands, revised reply be provided alongwith justification for non-imposition of LD charges.

Audit recommends that the matter be justified otherwise LD be imposed and recovered from the contractor.

(PDP No. 1128, MCDP 2017-18)

2.4.18 Excess payment on account of dismantling - Rs. 1.725 million

The Bill of Quantities (BOQ) / Contract Agreement Volume-I provides that dismantling of bitumen carpet/TST and dismantling of stone metaling from existing road shall be paid under item No. 21-63 and 21-64 respectively as per rates worked out in the rate analysis.

The record pertaining to the construction of Airport to Langerpura Road revealed that the contractor (M/s CXB) executed a quantity of 5,223.65 Sq. m for dismantling of TST (Item No. 21-63) and 7087.91 Sq.m for stone metaling (Item No.21-64) in IPC-13. The area of dismantling of bitumen carpet/TST and dismantling of stone metaling was required to be the same, but the contractor claimed extra quantity of dismantling of stone metaling for 1,864.26 Sq.m (7,087.91 Sq.m – 5,223.65 Sq.m).

Audit holds that due to excess claim of quantity of dismantling of stone metaling, overpayment of Rs. 1,725,391 (1,864.26 Sq.m x Rs. 925.51) was made to the contractor.

The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that the matter will be referred to NESPAK being consultant of the project for their reply. If the recovery is established, Rs. 1.725 million will be recovered from the under process Final Bill of the project.

The reply is not cogent as the payment was made after the verification of the consultant and this aspect should have been examined before making the payment.

The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 decided that record be provided to Audit for verification. Negligence not to be repeated in future.

Audit recommends that over/excess payment be recovered from the contractor and deposit into Govt. treasury under intimation to audit.

(PDP No. 1129, MCDP 2017-18)

2.4.19 Double payment on account of construction, dismantling and dewatering of coffer dam - Rs. 21.003 million

As per bill of quantities (BOQ) of the contract agreement of Thotha Bridge Muzaffarabad, construction / dismantling of coffer dam and dewatering arrangements around pile caps was allowed as one job amounting to Rs 20.182 million (Rs. 14.157 million for construction of coffer dam and Rs 6.025 million for dismantling and dewatering arrangements).

The record pertaining to construction of Thotha Bridge, Muzaffarabad reveled that the contractor claimed an amount of Rs. 14.157 million and Rs. 6.025 million for “construction” and “dismantling of coffer dam and dewatering arrangements around pile caps” respectively in bill No. 06 of SAC (19th bill) as allowed in the BOQ. The contractor again claimed an amount of Rs. 16.143 million and Rs. 4.860 million for the same work which resulted into double / excess payment as detailed below:

Construction, Dismantling of Coffer dam and dewatering claimed in Bill No.06 CSR Ref. Description unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)

Construction NSI Pier -1 left side Job 1 8,494,444 8,494,444 NSI Pier -2 right side Job 1 5,662,962 5,662,962 Dismantling Pier -1 left side Job 1 2,467,318 2,467,318 Pier -2 Right side Job 1 1,644,879 1,644,879 Dewatering arrangements around pile caps Pier -1 left side Job 1 956,463 956,463 Pier -2 Right side Job 1 956,463 956,463 Total 20,182,529 Construction, Dismantling of Coffer dam and dewatering claimed 2nd time in Bill No.10 - VO#03& VO#04 Construction 5-48 Providing and lying plum concrete cu.m 818.900 9455.380 7,742,988 NSI Providing and lying stone pitching cu.m 306.690 5926.370 1,817,563 1-5 Carriage of unsuitable excavated material 1 10030.880 326 3,270,039 KM or part thereof cu.m 1-5 Carriage of unsuitable excavated material 10030.880 96 962937 from 1 KM to 2 KM cu.m 5-48 Providing and lying plum concrete cu.m 185.304 7790.112 1443539 9-17 supplying and dumping without boat cu.m 2136.000 424.190 906070 Dismantling Dismantling Coffer dam (earthen& boulders) cu.m 12167.3 325.997 3,966,503 Dismantling of plain cement concrete 185.3 2749.520 509,486 structures) Coffer dam (earthen& boulders) cu.m Dewatering Dewatering for pile construction cu.m 960.0 400.000 384,000 Total 21,003,125 The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that the matter is under correspondence with M/s NESPAK. If the recovery is established, the same will be made from the final bill of the contractor. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed to hold a fact finding Inquiry and report provided to Audit. Audit recommends that the factual position be intimated and amount be recovered from the contractor and deposited into Govt. treasury.

(PDP No. 1132 & 1133, MCDP 2017-18)

2.4.20 Non-imposition and recovery of liquidity damages - Rs. 4.00 million Para 1 of the letter of acceptance states that if the contactor is not able to complete the work in-time, employer is at liberty to impose a penalty at a 0.1% of the contract price for each day of delay in completion of the works, subject to a maximum of 5% of contract price stated in the letter of acceptance. Clause 8.4 of the General Condition of the Contract states that if the contractor considers himself to be entitled to an extension of the Time for Completion, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer in accordance with Sub- Clause 20.1. When determining each extension of time under Sub Clause 20.1, the Engineer shall review previous determinations and may increase, but shall not decrease, the total extension of time. Clause 20.1 of the General Condition of the contract states that if the contractor considers himself to any extension of time for completion and / or any additional payment, under any clause of these conditions or otherwise in connection with the contract, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer describing the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance. The management of Muzaffarabad City Development Project awarded a contract for construction of Government Boys High School Narrul at a cost of Rs. 80.083 million to M/s China Xinjiang Bexin Construction & Engineering (Group) Co., Ltd. on 11.12.2013. The original completion date was 10.12.2014. The contractor could not complete the work in-time and an extension of time (EOT) was granted upto 02.09.2015 (148 days’ delay) as detailed below:

Date of Amount Name of Project Date of Date of taken over Delay of LD Project Cost (Rs.) Commencement Completion certificate (Rs.) Construction of Govt. Boys 80,082,942 11.12.2013 10.12.2014 02.09.2015 148 days 4,004,147 High School, Narrul The record revealed that contractor submitted request for EOT on 15.12.2014 on the following grounds: 34

(i) Delay in handing over site from school staff (ii) Shifting the dismantled material (iii) Excavation done by Parts due to hindrances in acquisition of land (iv) Heavy rains during construction activities. (v) Excavation done by parts due to hindrance of acquisition of land (vi) Delay in material supply due to frequent road blockages, and (vii) Changes in trusses design. Audit observed the following: I. Extension of 20 days due to shifting of dismantled debris from site was unjustified because proof of handing over and taking of school after dismantling and shifting of material was not available / provided. II. Extension of 20 days due to stoppage of work due to scattered rains throughout the year was unjustified because the reports / correspondence with the management / consultants were not available which could show that due to heavy rains work could not be performed at site. Further record showing extraordinary rainfall was also not attached with EOT. III. Extension of 54 days due to delay in material supply was unjustified as the arrangement and supply of material was the sole responsibility of the contractor. Further, non-availability of material was not substantiated with documentary evidence. IV. Extension of 54 days on the basis of excavation done in parts due to late acquisition of land was unjustified because this aspect had already been taken in consideration of late handing over of site to contractor. Audit noticed that punch list was prepared on 02.09.2015 on completion date. The scrutiny of punch list showed that 61 items were missing / needed repair. Following items / pending work of the punch list showed that work was still incomplete on the extended date:  Color / paint of beading around windows missing  Damage / defective plaster on compound wall on back side and left side of primary section.  PCC floor in front of emergency stairs / primary section is broken and cleanliness of marble is not done.  Paints / distemper of some rooms (high School) not complete. 35

 Toilet block not cleaned and paint incomplete no locking arrangement  Water geysers not installed  Water filter not installed  Water cooler not installed.  Firefighting system as per BOQ item not provided  Cowells on vent pipes (Sewer lines) not provided  Wire gauze of some windows have sags and need tightening.  Paint work of outside is not according to specifications and need more coat. Further, the request for EOT was submitted by the contractor on 15.12.2014 and approved by the employer on 30.12.2015 and conveyed / issued on 03.01.2016. This indicates that process of applying and granting of EOT was done after the completion time i.e. 10.12.2014. EOT was granted after issuance of taken over certificate on 02.09.2015 (i.e. after actual/extended completion date) which reveals that grant of EOT without imposition of LD charges was only to fulfil the requirement. The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018 but no reply was given by the management. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed that record pertaining to audit observations be produced to Audit for verification. No record was produced till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that relevant record be produced otherwise LD charges be imposed and recovered from the contractor. (PDP No. 1134, MCDP 2017-18) 2.4.21 Un-authorized release of umbrella performance guarantees – US $ 17.649 million Umbrella contract agreement provides that the contract shall come into force and effect on the date when the contractor will provide a performance security equal to 5% of the umbrella contract price from an “A” rated Pakistani scheduled bank acceptable to the employer. The record pertaining to MCDP revealed that Chinese contractors had provided the umbrella performance securities of US $ 17.649 million at fixed

36 exchange rate @ Rs. 79.65 per dollar (US $ 9.186 million + US $ 8.463 million by M/s CWE and M/s CXB respectively) which were released by the management despite the fact that the works were still incomplete. Audit holds that release of umbrella guarantees besides release of individual contract agreement guarantees was un-authorized as most of the contracts were still incomplete and financial assistance advance against the contractor was also recoverable. The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management vide its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that M/s CWE has completed all projects and Performance Certificates issued, therefore as per the contract agreement and recommendation by consultant M/s NESPAK, the guarantee was returned to M/s CWE. Umbrella Contract Agreement Performance Guarantee of M/s CXB for the remaining work is still intact and is valid up to 31st Dec 2018. Reply of the department is not tenable being without supporting evidence. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed that relevant record related to Umbrella performance guarantee and escrowed amount of CXB be produced to Audit for verification. Audit recommends that the relevant record be produced for verification besides justification for release of umbrella guarantees despite the fact that most of the contracts were incomplete and payment of advance financial assistance still adjustable.

(PDP No. 1135, MCDP 2017-18) 2.4.22 Overpayment due to application of incorrect rates for calculation of price adjustment – Rs. 11.491 million As per clause 1.1.3.1 of Part-II Particular Conditions of Umbrella Contract, the base date means the date 28 days prior to the date on which the Individual Contract Agreement is signed. A contract for the construction of Satellite Town Thotha, Muzaffarabad was signed between M/s China International Water and Electric Corporation and MCDP on 20th February 2012. The Final Payment Certificate of the project revealed that an

37 amount of Rs. 52.794 million was paid to the contractor as price adjustment. Audit observed that rates for the month of January 2012 were applicable as base rates for the calculation of price adjustment whereas, the department applied the rates for the month of September 2011 as detailed below:

Rates for the month of Jan 2012 (Rs.) Rates for the month of Sep 2011 (Rs.) Steel 71,500 Steel 69,500 Cement 420 Cement 397.5 Labour 400 Labour 400 HSD 98.82 HSD 92.64 Bitumen 76,763 Bitumen 75,719 Thus, due to application of rates for the month of September 2011, an amount of Rs. 11.491 million was overpaid to the contractor as detailed in enclosed Annexure-VII. The matter was pointed out on 05.09.2018. The management in its reply dated 06.09.2018 stated that the revision of rates at the time of signing of individual contract 5 months after submission of BOQs/bid would have been a laborious job and would have delayed the execution of the contract. Therefore, the base price was taken from the time of submission of bids in the best interest of timely completion of the project. However, the practice has not resulted in any financial loss. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed that Para stands. Audit recommends that overpayment of Rs. 11.491 million made due to application of rates for the month of September 2011 for calculation of price adjustment ignoring the provisions of Particular Conditions of Umbrella Contract Agreement be recovered from the contractor or the person(s) held responsible and deposited into Govt. treasury under intimation to audit.

(PDP No. 1143, MCDP 2017-18) 2.4.23 Unjustified expenditure without provision in PC-I / Revised PC-I – Rs. 4.157 million As per Para 9.1 of Guidelines for Project Implementation, after the approval of the project, the executing agency implements the project according to the provisions of PC-I. There is no need for revision of PC-1 if completion cost is within

38 the permissible limit of 15% of the approved cost and scope of the project as approved in the PC-I. A contract for reconstruction / rehabilitation of Battagram Shimlai Road 13 km (km 7 to km 20) was awarded to M/s Khattak Allied Construction Company for a bid cost of Rs. 123.879 million on 01.02.2010. The PC-I was later on revised to Rs. 298.888 million. The record revealed that the contractor executed earthwork on 762.5 meter length of link road and payment of Rs. 4.175 million (earthwork + other works) was made to the contractor. It was observed that the link road was not provided in original as well as revised PC-I. Further the name of road and location (RDs) of work was not mentioned on measurement sheets / IPC. Audit holds that execution for work on link road and payment thereof without provision in PC-I / Revised PC-I is unauthorized / irregular. The matter was pointed out on 28.08.2018. In its reply dated 24.10.2018, the management stated that the contractor executed earthwork on link road. However, the same was deducted in final payment certificate. The reply is not convincing as no justification for execution of extra work (not provided in PC-I/revised PC-I) and subsequently its deletion was given. Further, no proper evidence showing the deduction of earthwork as well as other items of works pertaining to link road was furnished. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that approval for the link road as well as revised PC-I and Technical Sanction be provided to Audit for verification. Further, SOP be issued that any variation in the original PC-I would be processed along with proper written justification. Audit recommends that proper justification for execution of work on link road not provided in PC-I and subsequently its deletion be given. Further, proper evidence regarding deduction / recovery from the final payment certificate of link road, be produced for verification.

(PDP No. 1146, DDR Battagram 2016-18)

2.4.24 Over payment due to miscalculation – Rs. 3.527 million Rule-23 of GFR Vol-I provides that every Government officer should realize fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence on the part of any other govt. officer. The IPC-34 pertaining to contract for reconstruction / rehabilitation of Judicial Complex, Battagram (Governance Package-13) revealed that the contractor was paid an amount of Rs. 10.311 million on account of VO-2. The calculations were checked and found that actual payment to be made was Rs. 6.783 million. Thus due to miscalculation, an amount of Rs. 3.527 million was overpaid to the contractor. The matter was pointed on 28.08.2018. In their reply dated 24.10.2018, the management stated that VO-2 has been paid upto IPC-32 for total amount of Rs. 6,956,468 whereas in IPC-34 some sheets were missing are now attached. No overpayment is made to the contractor. The reply is not acceptable. The copies of VO-2 of IPC-34 now attached with reply are entirely different to that of IPC-34 provided during audit. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that original record be produced to Audit for verification and responsibility fixed for miscalculation. Audit recommends that the matter be investigated to probe into the facts. Besides, recovery of the overpaid amount of Rs. 3.527 million from the contractor.

(PDP No. 1151, DDR Battagram 2016-18) 2.4.25 Irregular payment in IPCs – Rs. 3.693 million Rule-23 of GFR Vol-I provides that every Government officer should realize fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence on the part of any other govt. officer.

The IPC-37 (Abstract of cost) pertaining to contract for reconstruction / rehabilitation of Judicial Complex, Battagram (Governance Package-13) revealed that an amount of Rs. 10.311 million was paid under “VO No. 2&7 (Abnormal increase in BOQ items involving rebate)”. But the abstract of cost and quantities showed the upto date payment against VO-2 as Rs. 9.656 million (i.e. a difference of Rs. 0.655 million). The difference in amounts when further probed it was found that the said payment was made through IPC-34. The calculations of VO-2 given in IPC-34 were checked and found that actual payment made was Rs. 6.783 million. A comparison of items, rates and quantities given in VO, IPC-34 and IPC-37 revealed as under: 1. Certain items of works were not provided / approved in VO-2 but were executed and paid in IPC-34 as detailed below: S. Item Rate Qty. Amount No. No. Description Unit (Rs.) executed paid (Rs.) 1 1 Pavement Sets 70 1,494.00 104,580.00 2 2 Providing and Laying Bedding Cft. 30 1,660.62 49,818.60 3 3 Providing and Laying tuff tiles Cft. 66 10,378.78 684,999.48 4 C-E1 Brick masonry Cft. 260 4,576.22 1,189,817.20 5 P-45 Plain cement concrete Class C (ratio 1:2:4) Cft. 200 3,301.85 660,370.00 2,689,585.28

Thus, payment of Rs. 2.690 million made there-against was held irregular and unauthorized. 2. The BOQ rates applied were liable to rebate @ 18.5%. However, due to non-application of rebate, an amount of Rs. 1.004 million was overpaid in IPC-34 as detailed below:

Rate to be applied after Rate 18.5% S. Item applied rebate Qty. Amount paid Amount to be Overpayment No. No. Description Unit (Rs.) (Rs.) executed (Rs.) paid (Rs.) 1 C-D1 Class E concrete Cft. 200 163 4,220.76 844,152.00 687,983.88 156,168.12 2 C-E1 Brick masonry Cft. 260 212 4,576.22 1,189,817.20 970,158.64 219,658.56 4-1/2" thick brick 3 C-E3 masonry Cft. 280 228 7,171.44 2,008,003.20 1,635,088.32 372,914.88 Weather Shield 4 C-K2 paint Sft. 32 26 22,005.00 704,160.00 572,130.00 132,030.00 Plain cement concrete Class 5 P-45 C(ratio 1:2:4) Cft. 200 163 3,301.85 660,370.00 538,201.55 122,168.45 Class C Concrete 6 6 in DPC Cft. 300 245 24.00 7,200.00 5,880.00 1,320.00 5,413,702.40 4,409,442.39 1,004,260.01

3. The previous quantities depicted in IPC-37 did not match with upto date quantities executed in IPC-34. A huge difference in quantities as well as rates was observed. The matter was pointed on 28.08.2018. In their reply dated 24.10.2018, the management stated that (1) the items pertaining to VO-3 were paid in IPC-32. In IPC-34, no payment was made against VO-3 but due to typographical error, VO-2 was typed instead of VO-3. (2) Upto IPC-32 payment of Rs. 9,656,468 was made on which rebate already deducted whereas in IPC-34, payment of Rs. 654,155 verified. In this IPC no rebate deducted which come to Rs. 102,572 which will be deducted in next IPC. (3) No payment was made in IPC-37 against VO-2, the abstract sheet mistakenly attached with this IPC was of previous IPC-32, however, the main summary sheet of this IPC is upto date. The same error is corrected with no cost impact. The reply is not satisfactory as (1 & 2) no evidence in support of reply was produced. (3) The copies of VO-2 of IPC-37 attached with reply were entirely different to that of IPC-37 provided during audit. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that original record be produced to Audit for verification and responsibility be fixed for miscalculation. Audit recommends that the matter be investigated to probe into the facts and fix responsibility. Besides, recover the overpaid amount from the contractor or the person(s) held responsible.

(PDP No. 1152, DDR Battagram 2016-18) 2.4.26 Overpayment due to fluctuation in price adjustment factor – Rs. 2.176 million The S. No. 4 of “Applicability” of Part-1 of Standard Procedure and Formula for Price Adjustment issued by Pakistan Engineering Council in March 2009 provides that in the event the completion of contract exceeds the original scheduled period: (i) In case of default on the part of the contractor causing delay in original scheduled completion, the rate of Price Adjustment will be frozen at the original scheduled date of completion; however Price Adjustment

will be applicable till actual completion. While computing Price Adjustment beyond the scheduled completion period, in the event the rate is reduced, then that reduced rate will be applied. (ii) The Price Adjustment will be payable in full for the extended period if the contractor has been granted an extension of time for no fault on the part of the contractor, duly approved by the Employer.

The record pertaining to Reconstruction & Rehabilitation of Shatyal Bridge revealed that the contractor could not complete work within the stipulated time and no extension was granted to the contractor. Hence, the rates for calculation of price adjustment factor after the expiry of scheduled completion time were applied for the month of June 2011 (being the date of completion 21.06.0211) and an amount of Rs. 4.699 million was paid to the contractor on account of price adjustment. Audit is of the view that in the event the rates were reduced than the frozen rates, the same should have been applied for the calculation of price adjustment which was not done. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1.104 million was overpaid to the contractor as detailed in Annexure-VIII. Similarly, the IPC No. 6 pertaining to BHU Goshali revealed that an amount of Rs. 1.347 million was paid to the contractor as price adjustment. The contractor could not complete work within the stipulated time and no extension was granted. As per procedure, the rates were to be frozen at the rates of May 2010 (being the date of completion 24.05.0210) which was not done and an amount of Rs. 1.072 million was overpaid to the contractor on account of price adjustment as detailed at Annexure-IX. The matter was pointed out on 06.09.2018. In its reply dated 08.11.2018, the management stated that the price adjustment was calculated on the reduced/frozen rates. The lowest rates of June 2011 were applied while calculating the price adjustment. Only steel rate of July 2011, was erroneously applied instead of June 2011. That will be corrected in the next price adjustment and audit will be informed accordingly. The reply is not convincing. The price adjustment was to be calculated at frozen rates or the reduced rates than the frozen rates as per PEC procedure. 43

The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that Para Stands and recovery be made where applicable and record be verified by Audit. Audit recommends that overpaid amount of Rs. 2.176 million be recovered from the contractors.

(PDP No. 1197, DDR Kohistan 2016-18) 2.4.27 Discrepancies in obtaining Third Party Insurance As per clause 23.1 of GCC, the Contractor shall insure, in the joint names of the Contractor and the Employer, against liabilities for death of or injury to any person or loss of or damage to any property (other than the Works) arising out of the performance of the Contract. As per clause 23.2, such insurance shall be for at least the amount stated in the Appendix to Tender. As per clause 24.2, the contractor shall insure against accident to workmen and shall continue such insurance during the whole of the time that any persons are employed by him on the Works. As per clause 25.1, the Contractor shall provide evidence to the Employer prior to the start of work at the Site that the insurances required under the Contract have been effected and shall, within 84 days of the Commencement Date, provide the insurance policies to the Employer. As per clause 25.3, if the contractor fails to effect and keep in force any of the insurances required under the Contract, or fails to provide the policies to the Employer within the period required by Sub-Clause 25.1, then and in any such case the Employer may effect and keep in force any such insurances and pay any premium as may be necessary for that purpose and from time to time deduct the amount so paid from any monies due or to become due to the Contractor, or recover the same as a debt due from the Contractor. The record of following two projects / schemes revealed that the works were neither insured by the contractors nor by the employer during the currency of the projects as required under the clauses of contract:

S Name of scheme Contractor Date of Bid Cost (Rs. Date of # award of in million) completion / contract Handing over 1 Reconstruction & Rehabilitation M/s Zardad & 18.06.2010 39.295 05.10.2017 of Shatyal Bridge Brothers 2 Reconstruction & Rehabilitation M/s Munawar 30.04.2009 31.365 - of BHU Goshali (Pkg. # H-33) Shah & Brothers Similarly, the final bills of following two schemes revealed that the contractors did not provide the incurrence cover nor effected by the employer during the currency of contract. However, contractors provided insurance covers with final bills for a period of one year only after completion of the projects as detailed below:

Minimum amount Insurance S. Incurrence cover Name of scheme of Insurance cover cover provided # provided for the period (Rs.) for (Rs.) Tehsil Agricultural 10.07.2013 to 1 2,000,000 500,000 Office Pallas (Pkg. -03) 09.07.2014 31.12.2017 to 2 R/R of BHU, Gabrial 2,000,000 600,000 31.12.2018 Audit holds that non-insuring the works as provided in contract clauses is serious lapse on the part of management besides the provision of insurance cover for one year after completion of the project does not serve the purpose. The matter was pointed out on 06.09.2018. In its reply dated 08.11.2018, the management stated that the contractors concerned have been directed to submit insurance cover at once. As and when it is provided, audit will be informed accordingly. The contractors of the scheme, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Agricultural Facilities Tehsil Agricultural Office Pallas (Package-03) and Reconstruction & Rehabilitation of BHU, Gabrial have provided insurance cover. The reply is not convincing as the insurance cover was to be provided by the contractors and in case of failure, the same was to be effected by the employer and amount was to be deducted from the payment of the contractor. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that in future, insurance to be carried out as per clause(s) of contract. DAC further directed that for the remaining work insurance be affected. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented. (PDP No. 1206, DDR Kohistan 2016-18) 45

2.4.28 Unjustified / irregular deletion of amount of work done already paid from the successive IPC – Rs. 2.010 million Rule-23 of GFR Vol-I provides that every Government officer should realize fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence on the part of any other govt. officer. A perusal of payment record pertaining to Reconstruction & Rehabilitation of BHU Goshali (Pkg. No. H-33) revealed that the contractor was paid Rs. 10,155,410 till IPC No. 6 including Rs. 2,010,248 for work done quantities on construction of Block Type-V Building-A & B. The contractor submitted IPC No. 7 on 21.03.2017 which was verified by the Engineer (NESPAK) and deleted / deducted the entire payment made on account of Block Type-V Building-A & B without assigning any reason. The matter was pointed out on 06.09.2018. In its reply dated 08.11.2018, the management stated that Resident Engineer M/s NESPAK Kohistan has been asked about the irregular deletion of work done, However, no reply is received. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that complete IPCs and measurement sheets be produced to Audit for verification. Audit recommends that the relevant record be produced for verification. Besides, matter be investigated as to why the payment of Rs. 2.010 million already made to the contractor was deleted / deducted from IPC-7.

(PDP No. 1207, DDR Kohistan 2016-18) 2.4.29 Non-imposition of LD – Rs. 94.09 million According to Clause 47.1 of GCC, liquidated damages @ 0.05% of the contract price for each day of delay in completion of the works subject to a maximum of 10% of contact price stated in the letter of acceptance shall be imposed. Deputy Director Reconstruction (PERRA) Mansehra awarded various contracts during 2015-16 and 2016-17. It was observed that none of the contractors

46 completed the work within the stipulated time nor extension in completion period was granted. Thus, LD amounting to Rs. 94.09 million as detailed at Annexure-X was liable to be imposed, which was not done. The matter was pointed out on 08.08.2018. The management in its reply dated 31.10.2018 stated that LD is imposed at the substantial completion date and are determined on the basis of time lapsed in days between the relevant time for completion and the date stated in the taking over certificates. In case EOT is not justified, LD will be imposed and audit informed accordingly. The reply is not convincing. All the cases of EOT were not substantiated with documentary evidences. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that justification for grant of extension in time and non-imposition of LD be provided on case to case basis. Further, SOP be issued for processing of EOT well in time under intimation to Audit. Audit recommends that, proper justification for grant of extension be produced as per decision of the DAC or liquidated damages be imposed and recovered from the contractors.

(PDP No. 1208, DDR Mansehra 2016-18) 2.4.30 Un-authorized award of works of additional 9.3 km road beyond approved strategy As per Sr. No. 138 and 139 (Category-V) of Annexure 6-B of ERRA’s approved strategy for Works & Services Department Roads District Mansehra, the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Mangloor to Balhag Bala, Balhag Payeen Road and Palam Gali Khabal Road is provided for a total length of 4 km and 16 km respectively. The proposed formation of roads is of shingle with scope of work as Retaining Structure, X-Drainage, Earth work and Re-alignment. The record of Deputy Director Reconstruction Office Mansehra revealed that the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Mangloor to Balhag Bala, Balhag Payeen Road and Palam Gali Khabal Road were awarded in 2016-17 in piece meal comprising two packages for Mangloor to Balhag Bala, Balhag Payeen Road and four

47 packages for reconstruction and rehabilitation of Palm Gali Khabbal Road as in Annexure-XI. The record revealed that two contracts for the reconstruction of Palm Gali Khabbal Road for 5 km length (2.5 km each) were awarded during 2008. As per ERRA strategy, the total length of Mangloor to Balhag Bala, Balhag Payeen Road was 4 km and Palam Gali Khabal Road was 16 km while the above awarded contracts cover 9.3 km and 20 km length of roads respectively. Thus, 5.3 km and 4 km length of roads respectively were awarded beyond approved strategy. Further, as per strategy, proposed formation of road was Shingle having 5 meter and 4.5 meter width respectively including retaining structure, X-drainage, earthwork and re-alignment while, the contracts were awarded for PCC Road. Audit holds that award of contracts for PCC road and additional length is beyond the approved Strategy and thus irregular/unauthorized. The matter was pointed out on 08.08.2018. The management in its reply dated 31.10.2018 stated that strategy was prepared haphazardly at that time as there was no access to sites due to closure of roads at different points and the survey/assessment was not carried out properly. Later on, the Prime Minister directives issued vide U.O. dated 04.03.2015 on the request of local MNA for execution as the schemes were part of ERRA strategy. After proper survey, the PC-Is were prepared and got approved by concerned developmental forum. The reply is not acceptable as the roads were constructed in excess of approved length and their formation was changed from shingle to PCC roads in- contravention to the approved strategy. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that fact finding report be submitted to Audit enlisting justification for deviation from approved strategy. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented. Besides, approval of the competent forum be obtained to regularize the expenditure.

(PDP No. 1210, DDR Mansehra 2016-18)

2.4.31 Undue favor to contractors due to non-obtaining of double Performance Securities - Rs. 18.186 million As per Sr. No. 2 to Appendix A to Bid of Standard Bidding Documents issued by PEC in February 2008, the amount of Performance Guarantee shall be 10% of the contract price stated in letter of acceptance. As per clause 28.4 of Instructions to Bidders of Standard Bidding Documents, if the bid of the successful bidder is seriously unbalanced in relation to the Employer’s estimate, the Employer may require that the amount of the Performance Security be increased to a level sufficient to protect the Employer against financial loss in the event of default of the successful bidder under the contract. As per Evaluation Report of Bid Evaluation Committee recommendations dated 29.04.2016, the lowest bids were recommended for approval, however amount of performance security were doubled. The record of Deputy Director Reconstruction Office Mansehra revealed that three contracts for reconstruction / rehabilitation of Palm Gali to Khabbal Road were awarded during December 2016 to contractors as detailed below. The lowest bidders offered rates below engineering estimates hence the Bid Evaluation Committee recommended to award works to them subject to the condition that they will provide double performance security. However, Dy. Director Reconstruction Mansehra vide letters of acceptance dated 28.11.2016 directed the bidders to submit performance security equal to 10% of the contract price. As such, the contractors were favored by requiring only 10% performance securities instead of 20%. (Rs. in million) S. Pkg. Contractor Eng. Contract Below Eng. P.G P.G Required No. No. Name Estimates Cost Estimate Obtained to be obtained M/s Tarand 1 III 87.3 67.649 22.51% 6.7649 13.5298 Construction Co. M/s Rustam 2 V 68.065 54.289 20.24% 5.4289 10.8578 Khan & Co. M/s Tarand 3 VI 78.449 59.921 23.62% 5.9921 11.9842 Construction Co. Total 18.1859 36.3718

Further probe into the matter revealed that the amount of performance security was shown as 5% of the contract price in Appendix A to Bid in the Bid Documents. Audit holds that change in the Standard Bidding Documents was done just to favour the contractors and performance guarantee of less value was accepted. The matter was pointed out on 08.08.2018. The management in its reply dated 31.10.2018 stated that favour has not been extended to the contractors as the bidding documents were prepared before tendering process. As per bidding documents 5% performance guarantee was required but in said schemes double performance guarantee i.e. 10% have been obtained from the contractors due to low quoted rates. The reply is not acceptable as copies of the Appendix –A to bid pertaining to Palm Gali to Khabbal Road (Package-III and Package-VI) received with the reply indicate the amount of performance security as 10% of contract price stated in the Letter of Acceptance. On the other hand, the copy of Appendix-A pertaining to Package-V indicates the amount of performance security as 5% which is contradictory. Further, the standard bidding documents issued by PEC also indicate the amount of performance guarantee as 10%. Accordingly, due to unbalance bids of the successful bidders in relation to the Employer’s estimate, double performance security (20% of the bid price) should have been obtained from the successful bidders which was not done. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that the matter be investigated and responsibility fixed for lapse under intimation to Audit. Audit recommends that non-adherence to the rules and alteration in standard bidding documents to extend undue favour to contractors be investigated to fix responsibility.

(PDP No. 1211, DDR Mansehra 2016-18) 2.4.32 Loss due to non-encashment of performance security – Rs. 2.705 million Clause-10.2 of GCC provides that the performance security shall be valid until the Contractor has executed and completed the Works and remedied any defects therein in accordance with the Contract. No claim shall be made against such security after the issue of the Defects Liability Certificate in accordance with Sub-Clause 62.1

50 and such security shall be returned to the Contractor within 14 days of the issue of the said Defects Liability Certificate. A contract for the construction of Chattar Plain to Balimang Road (5.5 km) was awarded to M/s Muhammad Haroon, Government contractor at a bid cost of Rs. 27.049 million in January 2009 to be completed within 20 months. The work was to be completed by September 2010 which could not be completed. The contractor was granted extension in time upto 31.07.2011. Due to slow progress, M/s NESPAK directed the contractor to accelerate the progress vide letter dated 28.03.2012. The NESPAK letter dated 10.09.2013 revealed that the contractor stopped the construction activities at site at a physical progress of 83%. The performance guarantee of Rs. 2.705 million was due to expire on 13.02.2013 but the same was neither renewed nor encashed. The contract was terminated pursuant to the recommendation of M/s NESPAK vide letter dated 31.03.2014 as per clause-63.1 of the GCC w.e.f. 07.10.2016. Audit holds that due to non-encashment of performance guarantee in-time, loss to the tune of Rs. 2.705 million is sustained by the Government. The matter was pointed out on 08.08.2018. The management in its reply dated 31.10.2018 stated that initially the pace of the work was satisfactory but due to financial crunch in the beginning of 2010 the payment delayed for executed work. The contractor submitted IPC No. 12 on 03.05.2011 and payment was made in 02/2012 after 10 months. Performance guarantee was valid upto 13.02.2013. Later on, the contractor left the work in-complete after the expiry time of his Performance Guarantee. An amount of Rs. 1.437 million on account of retention money is available to cater the risk of cost. The reply is not acceptable as the performance guarantee should have been renewed or encashed before its expiry to safeguard the interest of the state which was not done. The DAC in its meeting held on 7th January 2019 directed that the matter be investigated and responsibility fixed for non-encashment of Performance Guarantee. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented.

(PDP No. 1213, DDR Mansehra 2016-18) 51

2.4.33 Irregular award of contract beyond ERRA Approved Strategy resulting in excess expenditure - Rs. 38.623 million (approx.) According to ERRA Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Strategy, Transport (Roads and Bridges), District Abbottabad, Category-III Sr. No. 92, Reconstruction & Rehabilitation of Bakot Sangrari Road is provided for total length of 4 km for estimated cost of Rs. 16.00 million. According to DG PERRA letter No. PERRA/AA/2007/5638-48 dated 08.11.2007 Administrative Approval for Bakot Sungeriri Road (4 km) was accorded for Rs. 24.00 million. The Deputy Director Reconstruction (PERRA) Abbottabad awarded a contract for reconstruction & rehabilitation of Bakot Sangrari Road to M/s Zakori Construction Company for a length of 7 km at a bid cost of Rs. 65.930 million during September 2009. The approval for award of additional length of 3 km road beyond ERRA approved Transport Strategy was required to be obtained from ERRA Council/Board which was not done. The measurement sheet of earthwork, however, showed that the contractor executed earthwork upto 7+300 km length of road. The award of extra length resulted into excess expenditure of Rs. 38.623 (approx.) million on earthwork only. Audit holds that award of work beyond ERRA approved strategy without approval of ERRA Council/Board is irregular. The matter was pointed out on 27.07.2018. The management in its reply dated 02.11.2018 stated that due to re-alignment in RD’s between 4+500~5+800 a change occurred in old RD’s and hence RD 5+800 was given RD 6+100. The difference between RD 5+800~6+100 is 300 meter, that is why total length comes out 7+300 in measurement sheet but in fact actual length of the road is 7 KM. The reply is not acceptable as nothing has been intimated regarding construction of extra road of 3 Km beyond strategy. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed that fact finding report be submitted to Audit enlisting justification for deviation from approved strategy. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented. (PDP No. 1221, DDR ATD 2016-18) 52

2.4.34 Overpayment on account of execution of hot bit mac and concrete on same locations – Rs. 1.560 million Clause 307.4.1 of general specifications of NHA provides that unless otherwise shown on the plans or as directed by the Engineer, quantity of Bit-Mac shall be measured by theoretical volume of compacted mix, in place, in cubic meters. Measurement will be based on the dimensions as shown on plans or as directed by the Engineer. No measurement will be made for unauthorized areas or for extra thickness than specified. The payment record pertaining to Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Dewal Minal Road (12.145 km) revealed that lean concrete/Concrete Class-B and hot bit- mac were executed on same RDs as detailed below:

S. RD To Lean Concrete IPC Hot Bit Mac IPC No. from concrete Class-B No. Length Avg. Width Avg. Height Qty. (cum) No. (Qty) (Qty) (m) (m) (m) 1 3+166 3+180 4.27 7.123 15 14 3.65 0.05 2.555 18 2 3+244 3+260 4.61 7.69 15 16 3.65 0.05 2.92 18 3 3+373 3+390 4.91 8.181 15 17 3.65 0.05 3.103 18 4 3+930 4+030 28.725 47.875 15 100 3.65 0.05 18.25 18 5 4+670 4+690 5.37 8.94 15 20 3.65 0.05 3.65 18 6 4+887 4+990 29.59 48.92 15 103 3.65 0.05 18.80 18 7 5+015 5+025 2.775 4.70 11 10 3.65 0.05 1.85 18 8 5+080.7 5+222 36.68 64.47 11 & 15 141.3 3.65 0.05 25.79 18 9 5+271.6 5+300 7.77 12.96 15 28.4 3.65 0.05 5.18 18 10 5+454 5+500 12.59 20.99 15 46 3.65 0.05 8.40 18 11 6+460.2 6+675 58.00 96.66 15 214.8 3.65 0.05 39.20 18 Total 129.698 Thus due to execution of Dense Graded Hot Bit-mac on the same RDs where already rigid pavement had been made using lean concrete and concrete Class-B, overpayment of Rs. 1,556,376 (129.698 cum x Rs. 12,000 per cum) has been made on account of execution of hot bit-mac. The matter was pointed out on 27.07.2018. The management in its reply dated 02.11.2018 stated that Bit Mac and rigid pavement for PCC causeway and at steep gradient executed. The correction/corrected RD’s have already been made in IPC#18. No over payment has been made to the Contractor.

The reply is not acceptable as audit pointed out the overpayment by comparing the quantities of lean concrete, concrete Class-B and Hot Bit Mac from IPC-15 and IPC-18 which were already paid. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed that record be verified alongwith revised reply and responsibility be fixed. Audit recommends that proper justification be produced along with the relevant record otherwise overpaid amount be recovered from the contractor.

(PDP No. 1224, DDR ATD 2016-18) 2.4.35 Loss due to non-retendering of terminated contracts – Rs. 90.901 million Rule-23 of GFR Vol-I provides that every Government officer should realize fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence on the part of any other govt. officer. In DDR Office Abbottabad, following schools were included in AWP 2017 & 2018 for Reconstruction & Rehabilitation. However, it was observed that these schools were terminated during 2014 but could not be retendered till date of audit. An amount of Rs. 90.901 was incurred on these school buildings till the termination of contracts. The detail is as under: Sr. Expenditure incurred Name of School AWP Remarks No. (Rs. in million) 1 GGPS Mohri 2017 3.331 Terminated 2 GPS Batangi 2017 3.234 Terminated 3 GPS Devli Bandi 2017 3.274 Terminated 4 GPS Pather Gali 2017 4.095 Terminated 5 GPS Sanja 2017 4.880 Terminated 6 GPS Upper Kunthaili 2017 2.790 Terminated 7 GHSS Rich Bhen 2018 32.355 Terminated 8 GPS Chapri 2018 4.495 Recommended for Termination 9 GPS Samwala 2018 8.800 Recommended for Termination 10 GPS Panakha Satora 2018 3.487 Recommended for Termination 11 GHSS Bagnotar 2018 20.160 Recommended for Termination Total 90.901 ---

Audit holds that due to non-award of terminated projects, the expenditure of Rs. 90.901 million has gone waste. The matter was pointed out on 27.07.2018. The management in its reply dated 02.11.2018 stated that retendering of the balance works of terminated projects will be initiated upon submission of biding documents by consultant M/s NESPAK and the concurrence of ERRA and audit will appraised accordingly. The reply is not convincing as these schools were included in the AWP for 2017-18 and should have been awarded accordingly. The DAC in its meeting held on 8th January 2019 directed that the process of retendering be expedited. Audit recommends adopting measures to re-award and complete the terminated projects without further loss of time. (PDP No. 1228, DDR ATD 2016-18)

Chapter-3 National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) 3.1 Introduction of Authority National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is the lead agency at the Federal level to deal with the whole spectrum of Disaster Management activities. It is the executive arm of the National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC), which has been established under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister as the apex policymaking body in the field of Disaster Management. In the event of a disaster, all stakeholders including Government ministries/departments/organizations, armed forces, international/national NGOs, UN Agencies work through and form part of the NDMA to conduct one window operations. The authority is established under the National Disaster Management Act, 2010 and functions under the supervision of National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC), which is headed by the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. NDMA manages the whole Disaster Management Cycle (DMC), which includes preparedness, mitigation, risk reduction, relief and rehabilitation. A National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) is prepared and followed towards provision of better services to the affected ones. The vision of the authority is to achieve sustainable social, economic and environmental development in Pakistan through reducing risks and vulnerabilities, particularly those of the poor and marginalized groups, and by effectively responding to and recovering from all types of disasters events. The mission of the authority is to manage complete spectrum of disasters by adopting a disaster risk reduction perspective in development planning at all levels, and through enhancing institutional capacities for disaster preparedness, response and recovery. The mandate of NDMA is: a. Act as the implementing, coordinating and monitoring body for disaster management. b. Prepare the National Plan to be approved by the National Commission. c. Implement, co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of the national policy.

d. Lay down guidelines for preparing disaster management plans by different Ministries or Departments and the Provincial Authorities. e. Provide necessary technical assistance to the Provincial Governments and the Provincial Authorities for preparing their disaster management plans in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the National Commission. f. Co-ordinate response in the event of any threatening disaster situation or disaster. g. Lay down guidelines for or give directions to the concerned Ministries or Provincial Government and the Provincial Authorities regarding measures to be taken by them in response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster. h. For any specific purpose or for general assistance requisition the services of any person and such person shall be a co-opted member and exercise such power as conferred upon him by the Authority in writing. i. Promote general education and awareness in relation to disaster management. j. Perform such other functions as the NDMC may require it to perform.

3.2 Budget and Expenditure (Rs. in million) S. No. Financial Year Budget Expenditure 1 2017-18 272.462 270.170

3.3 AUDIT PARAS Irregularity & Non Compliance 3.3.1 Irregular award of contract of transportation - Rs. 1.095 million PPRA Rule 12(2) states that, all procurement opportunities over one million rupees should be advertised on the Authority’s website as well as in other print media or newspapers having wide circulation. The advertisement in the newspapers shall principally appear in at least two national dailies, one in English and the other in Urdu. According to Para No 5(b) of Finance Division O.M No F.3(2) Exp-III/2006 dated 13.09.2006 for System of Financial Control and Budgeting, Principal Accounting Officer shall ensure that the funds allotted to a Ministry / Division etc. are spent for which these are allotted. NDMA Islamabad did not invite open tender through vide publicity in the daily Newspapers and PPRA website and awarded the contract of transportation of NDMA stores to Karachi through a single a quotation to M/s Transways. A payment of Rs. 1.095 million was made cheque No A425926 dated 29.09.2017 during the F.Y 2017-18. Audit observed that contract was awarded without holding fair and healthy competition through open tender. Audit further observed that the expenditure was charged to Unforeseen Expenditure head - A03921 instead of Transportation head A03906. Audit is of the view that award of contract without advertisement in PPRA website as well as in newspapers and charging of expenditure to irrelevant head of account is irregular. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that prequalification of contractors for year 2017 was already carried out and NDMA stocks were required to be shifted as COD Karachi requested to provide the transport immediately due to renovation of both sheds. Sufficient funds were not available in relevant head A-03906, therefore, payment of Rs. 1.095 million was made from Head A-03921, Unforeseen expenditure.

The reply is not convincing as the advertisement for pre-qualification of firms was also not given on PPRA website. Further, the expenditure should have been charged to the relevant head of account i.e. transportation of goods. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 directed that Para stands till clarification from Finance Division regarding the purpose of Head A03921- Unforeseen Expenditure and verification of advertisement required from PPRA website. Audit recommends that the requisite clarification be sought from the Finance Division and also provide a copy of advertisement from PPRA website. Besides, the expenditure be regularized from the competent authority.

(PDP No. 1159, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.2 Inadmissible payment of allowances to army personnel and Non- Combatant Bearer (NCBs) – Rs 14.416 million As per JSI 4/85-case No.F-2/70/D-24, (C-IV)/83, ASMF Dy.No.164 / S / ASMF / of 1985 “The deputationists will be entitled to pay of rank, Command / Staff / Charge Pay, Instructional Pay, Qualification pay, Flying Pay / Submarine Pay / Special Service Group pay/Technical pay/ Disturbance pay, Kit Allowance and Non- Practicing Allowance drawn by them in the Military service immediately before their secondment in addition to 20% of pay of the rank as special compensatory allowance”. As per Para 11(a) of Special Pakistan Army Order No. 3/2004 dated 22nd July 2004 “NCB moving with an officer will get same pay and allowances in new organization.” (A) NDMA allowed allowances as detailed at Annexure-XII and incurred an amount of Rs. 13.515 million during 2017-18. Audit observed that the drawing of allowances by Army personnel were inadmissible and contrary to the above quoted rules. (B) Similarly, NCBs attached with the officers of NDMA were paid Rs 901,464 on account of deputation allowance, fuel allowance, dress allowance, Fuel/Electricity Subsidy, Road to journey allowance and Special allowance working

59 on secondment in NDMA instead of same pay and allowances, which is against the instructions. The detail is given at Annexure-XIII. Audit is of the view that due to non-observance of instructions, the inadmissible payment of allowances of Rs 14.416 million was made. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that the Pay and Allowances to Armed Forces Personnel are being paid according to their L.P.C provided by their parent departments. The Pay & Allowances are fixed as per Serial No. 30 of EstaCode stating the terms & condition of deputation. Further, as per NDMA understanding of the above instructions it means official is entitled for same pay & allowances also being given to other civil organizations on deputation basis and the same practice was even carried out by AGPR when pay slips were issued by AGPR for NDMA employees. The reply is not acceptable being contrary to the instructions given in JSIs quoted above. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 directed that Para stands till clarification from MAG regarding pay & allowances of Army Personnel on secondment with reference to JSI. Audit recommends that the requisite clarification be sought from the MAG and produced to Audit. Otherwise, inadmissible amount paid be recovered and deposited into treasury, besides stoppage of such allowances forthwith.

(PDP No. 1160 & 1172 NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.3 Irregular drawl of pay & allowances beyond the deputation period - Rs 4.453 million According to Esta Code SI No 27 (i), the normal period of deputation for all categories of government servants would be three years. This would be extendable by two years with the prior approval of the competent authority. Contrary to the above, officers / officials on deputation to NDMA Islamabad were drawing pay & allowances beyond the initial period of three years on deputation. Audit observed that the cases for extension in deputation period for

60 further two years were sent after expiry of initial period without obtaining NOC from parent(s) department which was against the government instruction. Due to weak financial discipline and internal control, the cases for extension of time period were not sent for prior approval of the competent authority in-time. Thus, irregular payment of Rs 4.453 million was made on account of pay and allowances on deputation period as detailed at Annexure-XIV. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that in some cases NOC from the parent departments was obtained and some cases, NOC are under process for obtaining approval. The reply is not cogent as at the time of audit, the officers/officials were working without NOC / extension of deputation period. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided that Para settled subject to verification of record. No record was produced to Audit till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that in the light of DAC decision, the record may be produced for verification.

(PDP No. 1167, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.4 Irregular payment of honorarium without codal requirements - Rs. 7.722 million Honoraria means a recurring or non-recurring payment granted to a Govt. servant from general revenue as remuneration for special work of an occasional or intermittent character. According to FR 46 (b) “A competent authority can sanction honorarium to a Government servant for doing certain work subject to the condition that the work is occasional in character, so laborious or of such special merit as to justify special reward”. According to S.No.17 of Annex-I of System of Financial Control and Budgeting 2006, the amount of honorarium should not exceed one months’ pay and the power will be exercised subject to the condition that the relevant rules and policy instructions issued by the Finance Division from time to time are duly observed.

During scrutiny of the payment record on account of honoraria for the F.Y 2017-18 paid to NDMA employees it was observed that: The observations are as under. i. Working Contribution / efficiency / criteria was not set out for payment of honoraria ii. Honoraria payment relates to efficiency of the employee not for all employees. iii. An officer who recommends for grant / payment of honoraria to the officers / officials not eligible to recommend his own name for the said purpose. iv. As per NDMA criteria the grant of honoraria on the basis of duration of the service In the light of position stated above, the expenditure of Rs. 7.722 million as detailed below was held irregular:

Cheque No. & Entry No. Head Amount Sanction No. Remarks Date & Date (Rs.) A496335-80 1457 dated A01273 5267,054 F.13(16)/2010 NDMA Grade 1 to 18 dated 23.05.2018 23.05.2018 /A&P dated 23.08.2018 Employees A501080-83 1660 dated A01273 75,475 F.13(16)/2010 NDMA DFA Organization dated 06.06.2018 06.06.2018 /A&P dated 06.06.2018 A501077-79 1659 dated A01273 2,379,960 F.13(16)/2010 NDMA Grade 19 & Above dated 06.09.2018 06.06.2018 /A&P dated 06.06.2018 Employees Total 7,722,489 The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that the honorarium was granted on recognition of best performance of all the employees of organization during the FY 2017-18. The criteria for grant of honorarium was submitted to the competent authority before grant of honorarium. All employees of NDMA were assigned different tasks for organizing different events for the best interest of the authority. The reply is not convincing as record or details relating to performance of special work of an occasional or intermittent character in respect of all employees for grant of honoraria was not provided.

The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 directed that Para stands till the verification of documents from Finance Division for officers BS-19 & above. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented.

(PDP No. 1168, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.5 Excess payment on account of rent of residential accommodation - Rs. 6.588 million Section 47 of National Disaster Management Act, 2010 provides that the Federal Government and Provincial Government may, by notification in official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act. NDMA framed its own rules called NDMA Rules 2007 and fixed the rental ceiling for different scales as detailed below:

S. Government Rate BPS NDMA Ceiling No. Islamabad Other 1 1-2 3,254 3,051 5,000 2 3-6 5,083 4,458 8,000 3 7-10 7,594 6,797 10,000 4 11-13 11,455 9,936 15,000 5 14-16 14,391 12,562 20,000 6 17-18 19,049 16,619 40,000 7 19 25,326 21,674 45,000 8 20 31,806 27,351 55,000 9 21 38,084 32,920 70,000 10 22 45,576 41,310 156,000 NDMA paid an amount of Rs. 17.723 million on account of rent of residential buildings for the F.Y 2017-18 as per NDMA rules. The record revealed that the rates of residential ceiling approved by NDMA were higher than the rates approved by the Government. Audit observed that NDMA rules were not vetted / approved from Ministry of Finance as well as other concerned Ministries. Thus, due to difference in rates of ceiling, an amount of Rs. 6.589 million was paid in excess as detailed in Annexure-XV. Audit holds that without approval of the rules, payment of residential hiring at higher rates is unauthorized and excess amount paid needs to be recovered.

The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that first meeting of NDMC was held on 5th March 2007. NDMA Rules were presented in the meeting, which were conditionally approved. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided that Para stands till the notification of NDMA Rules. Audit recommends that since NDMA rules are not vetted / approved from Ministry of Finance as well other concerned Ministries and ceiling fixed by NDMA is more than the rates prescribed by the Government therefore, the over payment be recovered under intimation to audit.

(PDP No. 1169, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.6 Irregular payment on account of allowances - Rs. 21.561 million Cabinet Division letter No. 2-31/88/MINII dated 17.08.1999 states that the Prime Minister has been pleased to approve the Prime Minister’s office Allowance and Utility Allowance w.e.f 18.06.1999 for the employees of Prime Minister’s Office. Cabinet Division Notification No. 4-14/2011-min.1 dated 26.10.2011 states that the Prime Minister has been pleased to constitute, with immediate effect, the Ministry of National Disaster Management which was previously attached with the Prime Minister’s Office. NDMA paid an amount of Rs. 21.561 million during the financial year 2017-18 on account of Prime Minister’s Secretariat Allowance, Fuel Allowance, Utility Allowance and actual reimbursement of utilities bills as detailed below:

S Name of Allowance Amount Rs. Remarks No. 1. P.M Secretariat Allowance 10,000,000 All employees 2. Fuel Allowance 6,652,622 BPS-18 & below 3. Utilities Telephone 3500,000 4,908,962 (Reimbursement of Gas, water & Gas 300,000 Electricity bills of BPS- 19 & Water 29,289 above) Electricity 1,079,673 Total 21,561,584 Audit observed that all the pay and perks of PM Office were paid to the employees despite the fact that NDMA had been detached from the Prime Minister’s 64

Office and placed under the climate change division. Therefore, payment of Prime Minister’s Office Allowance and Utility Allowance and reimbursement of actual utility bills was irregular without approval from federal government. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that Para 24(1) of NDMA Rules state that “all employees of the Authority shall be treated as part of Prime Minister Secretariat and shall be entitled to all the privileges/allowance admissible to employees of that secretariat, without prejudice to the privileges/allowances admissible to them under these rules”. In the light of said rules, these allowances were paid to NDMA Employees. The reply is not acceptable as NDMA Rules were not approved by the Finance Division. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided that recovery of the amount be made if the NDMA Rules are not approved by 31st March 2019. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented.

(PDP No. 1170, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.7 Illegal appointment of contingent staff over and above the sanctioned strength - Rs. 13.241 million According to Rule 11 of the GFR Vol-1 that, each head of a department is responsible for enforcing financial orders and strict economy at every step. He is responsible for observance of all relevant financial rules and regulation both by his own office and by subordinate disbursing officers. Sanctioned strength of the NDMA provides that staff for the Authority shall be hired either on deputation basis or contract and contingent basis as per approved limits of the sanctioned strength. Audit observed that the management of NDMA hired human resource over and above the sanctioned strength. The detail is as under:

Total S. Regular Contract Contingent Sanctioned Total for Description working Over No. employees employees employees strength FY 2017-18 strength 1 Jr. Asstt. (B-04 0 0 6 6 0 6 918,867 2 Store Clerk (B-4) 0 0 4 4 0 4 903,644 3 Driver (BS-04) 16 2 12 30 18 12 2,140,961 4 N/Q (B-01) 18 9 23 50 27 23 4,905,676 5 Sanitary Worker 0 0 3 3 0 3 636,819 (B-1) 6 NCBs 6 0 0 8 0 8 2,170,551 7 Security Guard 0 0 1 1 0 1 212,273 (B-01) 8 Mali (B-01) 0 0 2 2 0 2 424,546 9 Sweeper (B-01) 0 0 2 2 0 2 339,265 10 Gunman (B-9) 1 0 0 1 0 1 588,757 Total 13,241,359 Detail of drawing of Contingent Staff / Daily Wages and Detail of drawing of NCBs and Security Guard Pay is at Annexure-XVI and Annexure-XVII respectively. Audit is of the view that hiring of staff over and above the approved sanctioned strength is illegal which resulted in extra expenditure from government funds to the tune of Rs. 13.241 million. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that the Chairman has the authority to appoint a person over and above the sanctioned strength of the authority on need basis as an interim arrangement for a period not exceeding 90 days in BS 1-4 or equivalent. Further, each officer is authorized 1 x NCB and serving Lt. General is authorized for 2 x NCBs. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided that Para stands and approval of Finance Division for recruitment of the contingent paid staff over and above the sanctioned strength be obtained and produced to Audit. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented besides irregular expenditure be regularized from the competent forum.

(PDP No. 1176, NDMA 2017-18)

3.3.8 Payment of hiring of residential accommodation to contractual employees without approval of NDMA Service Rules - Rs. 8.076 million According to Rule 10(1) of the GFR Vol-I that, every public officer is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money. As per record of NDMA regarding hiring of residential accommodation, the employees on contract basis were allowed hiring of residential accommodation under the hiring policy of NDMA without approval of NDMA service rule / policy from competent authority. An amount of Rs. 8.076 million was paid in this account as detailed at Annexure-XVIII. Audit holds that payment for residential accommodation to contract employees without approval of NDMA Service Rules was irregular. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that the appointment on contract basis had been made against sanctioned posts of the Authority, therefore, all Perks and Privileges including hiring of Government accommodation is provided to the contract employees as per contract agreement and NDMA Appointment rules. The reply is not acceptable as the NDMA Rules are not approved / vetted by the Finance Division. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 directed that efforts be made for vetting of the service rules by 31st March 2019. Further, any amount paid above the Government ceiling during the present scenario is irregular. Audit recommends that the NDMA Service Rules 2007 be approved from competent forum and payment of hiring to contract staff without approval of NDMA service rule / policy be regularized from the competent authority.

(PDP No. 1178, NDMA 2017-18)

3.3.9 Irregular award of contract of 279 tents and misclassification of expenditure - Rs. 2.896 million According to Rule 12(2) of the PPRA Rule 2004, all procurement opportunities over one million rupees should be advertised on the Authority’s website as well as in other print media or newspapers having wide circulation. The advertisement in the newspapers shall principally appear in at least two national dailies, one in English and the other in Urdu. According to Rule 9 of the PPRA Rule 2004 that, a procuring agency shall announce in an appropriate manner all proposed procurements for each financial year and shall proceed accordingly without any splitting or regrouping of the procurements so planned. The annual requirements thus determined would be advertised in advance on the Authority’s website as well. GFR Rule 12 states that a controlling officer must see not only that the total expenditure is kept within the limits of the authorized appropriation. Management of NDMA Islamabad paid Rs. 2.896 million on account of purchase of 279 family tents (4 x 4 meters) @ Rs. 10,383 per tent vide invoice No. 002 dated 25.04.2018 to M/s Pearl Associates vide cheque No. A509476 dated 28.06.2018. In this regard following observations were noticed:

1. Neither advertisement was floated in 2 widely circulated newspapers, nor was any firm pre-qualified for the said purpose. 2. Expenditure was incurred by splitting the requirement to avoid the approval / sanction of the higher authority as 5,000 family tents were already procured in January, 2018. 3. The tents were procured without considering the demand. 4. 1st purchase of 5,000 family tents was charged / booked under NDMF Account whereas these 279 family tents were charged / booked to account head A03921 Unforeseen Expenditure. 5. In both the cases, the supplier / vendor was same i.e. M/s Pearl Associates. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that (1) As per PPRA rule 42 (C) (iv), the procuring agency may engage in direct contracting through repeat orders not exceeding fifteen per cent of the original procurement. In provision of the said rule, NDMA procured 68

279 family tents from M/s Pearl Associates. There was no splitting of contract. Both heads NDMF and A03921-Unforseen Expenditure for Disaster Preparedness and relief are used for disaster Preparedness activities. The reply is not convincing as the procurement was made in violation of PPRA Rules and expenditure was debited to the irrelevant head of account. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 directed for the provision of demand of 279 tents to Audit. Further, clarification for the head of Account “Unforeseen expenditure” be obtained from Finance Division and intimated to Audit. Audit recommends that the decision of the DAC be implemented.

(PDP No. 1179, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.10 Non-Preparation of Annual Financial Statements According to Para No 9.3 of the Accounting Procedure for Operation of NDMF that, the Annual Financial Statement will be prepared for the financial year by 31st August of each calendar year and submitted to the Auditor General of Pakistan for the purpose of external audit. After necessary verification by the Auditor General of Pakistan, the same will be submitted to the Federal Government. NDMA is required to prepare annual financial statements of receipt and payments on the format given in Annex (B) with the Accounting Procedure and Statement of Assets and Liability as memorandum basis. Audit observed that NDMA did not prepare Financial Statements, being a statutory body, on the given format which were required to be produced to Audit for certification. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that the same observation was raised in last Fiscal Year by Audit Authority and was settled when it was confirmed that it is certified by Finance & CGA. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided to take up the issue with Finance Division and CGA. Audit recommends that Financial Statements for the FY 2017-18 be prepared and provided to Audit for certification.

(PDP No. 1192, NDMA 2017-18)

3.3.11 Violation of PPRA rules costing the exchequer – Rs. 2.455 million As per PPRA Rule 12 (2), all procurement opportunities over two million rupees should be advertised on the Authority’s website as well as in other print media or newspapers having wide circulation. The advertisement in the newspapers shall principally appear in at least two national dailies, one in English and the other in Urdu. NDMA entered into contracts with M/s Fauji Security Services (Pvt.) and M/s Rehman Security Systems (Pvt.) for provision of security guards in Islamabad and Karachi Warehouses respectively. An amount of Rs. 2.455 million was paid on account of security charges and charged under the head of “Payment to Other Services Rendered A03919” without advertisement in two national daily newspapers and PPRA website for tendering process, detail is as under:

Name of Firm No. of Amount Paid Name of Firm No. of Amount Guards (Rs.) Guards Paid (Rs.) M/s Fauji Security 8 176,320 16 176,000 Services (Pvt) Ltd 8 176,320 5 51,040 Islamabad & Karachi 12 250,800 5 51,040 Warehouse 4 88,160 5 51,040 8 167,200 5 51,040 (Provision of Security 4 83,600 M/s Rehman 5 51,040 Guards) 4 88,160 Security Systems 5 51,040 Contract 4 83,600 (Pvt) Ltd 4 88,160 4 83,600 8 176,320 4 83,600 4 88,160 4 88,160 4 83,600 8 167,200 1,972,960 482,240 Grand Total 1,972,960+482,240=2,455,200 Further the security guards were hired from M/s Fauji Security (Pvt.) for 12 hours @ 22,040 and 20,900 per guard for Islamabad and Karachi Warehouses respectively, whereas M/s Rehman Security System (Pvt.) provided security guards for various location of the country for 24 hours @ Rs. 11,000 per guard. This resulted

70 into hiring of security guard at higher rates and paid excess amount of Rs. 870,698 (482,240/7 months x 16 Month = Rs. 1,102,262 – 1,972,960= 870,698). Audit holds the expenditure of Rs. 2.455 million incurred without following the tendering process as irregular and in excess as required. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that the arrangement was urgent and for short terms. The arrangement was therefore, proposed to be finalized through quotation method. The reply is not acceptable as the same is not substantiated with documentary evidence. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided that recovery of overpayment be made and re-tendering process should be done besides, inquiry report also be shared with Audit. Audit recommends to implement the decision of the DAC.

(PDP No. 1194, NDMA 2017-18) 3.3.12 Non conducting / functioning of Internal Audit and Non-nomination of Authorized Sanction Conveying Officer According to Para No 21.1 of the Accounting Procedure of NDRMF, NDMA shall put in place a system of Internal Audit. The Internal Audit shall be conducted by qualified personnel. According to Rule 51(vi) of the GFR Vol-1, all letters, or orders conveying sanctions to expenditure, appointments, etc. must be signed by an authorized gazette officer, whose specimen signatures should be supplied to the Accountant-General concerned Scrutiny of the record of NDMA revealed that the Internal Audit was not conducted till the completion of External Audit. Further, Audit observed that all the contingency/personal claims were processed and paid by the DDO section whereas pre-audit of all the bills was also conducted by the same Section. The expenditure sanction orders were issued by

71 different officers of the NDMA instead of an authorized officer. In the absence of such authorized officer, the quality of internal control / audit could not be ensured. Audit is of the view that without conducting and functioning of internal audit the internal control system cannot be strengthened. Further, there must be separation of duties i.e. one section processing/making payment and other section conduct the pre-audit/internal audit of all the payments made by the NDMA. Thus, non- conducting of pre audit and internal audit resulted into weak internal controls. The matter was pointed out on 25.09.2018. In their reply dated 8th October 2018, the management stated that (1) the Internal Audit was carried out and the report submitted to PAO for approval.(2) payment and Pre-audit functions are being conducted by two different officers being controlled by the Director (Finance). Further, NDMA is also revising its Organizational structure and has proposed a post of Deputy Director (Internal Audit) who will be directly reporting to the Chairman. The management accepted the stance of Audit. The DAC in its meeting held on 3rd January 2019 decided that Internal Audit Wing needed to be established as well as sharing of Internal Audit reports with External Audit. Audit recommends that Internal Audit report be shared with audit. Further, the creation/functioning of proposed post of Deputy Director (Internal Audit) be intimated to audit.

(PDP No. 1195, NDMA 2017-18)

Chapter-4 FATA Disaster Management Authority (FDMA) 4.1 Introduction of Authority In consequence of Earthquake 2005 Federal Government has promulgated National Disaster Management Ordinance 2006 and in its light framed National Disaster Risk Management Framework March 2007. Government in such guide lines has constituted Disaster Management Commissions at National, Provincial and FATA level. These Authorities have been mandated to work on disaster risk reduction, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction in holistic manner. FATA Disaster Management Authority (FDMA)is mandated to carry out four spectrum of Disaster Management under National Disaster Management Act, 2010 extended through SRO No.302 (I)/2008 dated 10.03.2008, namely: a. Preparedness b. Response c. Recovery & Rehabilitation d. Reconstruction.

FDMA is working for assistance to achieve sustainable, social, economic and environmental return in FATA through reducing risk and vulnerabilities, particularly those of poor and marginalized groups and effectively responding to and recovering from disaster impact. The project is multi sector in nature and has specific objectives. Its objective is to implement different types of activities needed in minimization of damages inflected by natural and man-made disasters and to provide recovery, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction facility to the people of FATA especially most vulnerable areas due to disaster risk in flood/drought. Presently FDMA is being funded under FATA ADP. Due to dislocation of families from North Waziristan Agency due to Operation Zarb-e-Azb, the Federal Government has sanctioned special relief package comprising of monthly assistance of Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 5,000 as cost of Non Food Items per family.

4.2 Budget and Expenditure FDMA received funds from FATA Secretariat, Peshawar and SAFRON Division during 2017-18 as below:

Expenditure (Rs. S. Year Source Releases in million) No. (Rs. in million) FDMA Peshawar 2017-18 FATA Secretariat 1 30.072 30.072 021743-6 Peshawar 2017-18 FATA Secretariat 2 209.962 209.962 02341-1 Peshawar 2017-18 3 SAFRON Division 3,055.305 3940-4 Total 3,295.339

4.3 AUDIT PARAS Irregularity & Non Compliance 4.3.1 Unjustified / doubtful payment on account of provision of transport - Rs. 11.600 million According to Rule 23 of GFR Vol-I, every Government Officer should realize fully and clearly that he will be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by Government through fraud or negligence on his part and that he will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence on the part of any other govt. officer. The management of FDMA paid an amount of Rs. 11.600 million to two Transport Companies in Oct. 2017 on account of providing transportation facilities to the TDPs of North Waziristan Agency during August 2014 as detailed below:

S.# Cheque No. Date Paid to Amount (Rs.) 1 38488841 18.10.2017 M/s Haji Ghulam Mustafa & Sons 7,150,000 2 38488844 18.10.2017 M/s IBEX International 4,450,000 Total 11,600,000 The contractor (Haji Ghulam Mustafa & Sons) vide application dated 20.07.2017 requested for outstanding payment of transportation facilities provided to TDPs of North Waziristan Agency during August 2014. The record revealed that all the proceedings regarding hiring of transporters, issuance of work orders etc. were carried out between Finance Officer and Assistant Director (TME&R), FDMA without involving any other officer of FDMA. No approval of DG, FDMA for issuance of work order and contract was available on record. The claim of the contractor was sent to the Agency Coordinator (AC) for verification / authentication who stated that the activity was not in his knowledge nor any official of FDMA HQ communicated the said activity. Thus, the claim was again sent to Ex-AD (Activity Incharge) and Ex-Finance Officer for verification. The Ex- Finance Officer stated that his role was just to assist the activity incharge at field at that time and relevant record is with Activity Incharge. The Ex-AD (Activity Incharge), however, authenticated the claim. A committee comprising Ex-AD (Activity Incharge), Ex-Finance Officer, Agency Coordinator NWA and Return

Facilitation Officer was constituted vide notification dated 06.10.2017 to examine the claims of contractor. Later on, Director (Operation & Relief) was also included in the committee vide notification dated 13.10.2017. The minutes of the committee meeting dated 16.10.2017 revealed that the claim of another contractor M/s IBEX International was also examined with the claim of Haji Ghulam Mustafa & Sons. After going through the available record and pictorial and visual evidence presented by the activity incharge, DSRs etc. the committee recommended that both the contractors have done the work and that is verified by the activity incharge responsible for it, hence payment may be released to both contractors. Accordingly, payment of Rs. 7.007 million and Rs. 4.500 million was made to Haji Ghulam Mustafa & Sons and to M/s IBEX International vide cheque No. 38488841 and No. 38488844 dated 18.10.2017. In this regard following observations were made: 1. No proceedings regarding award of work, signing of contract and approval of the competent authority (DG) was available on record. 2. The contract and work order were signed by the Finance Officer 3. The approval of the work was accorded by the AD (TME&R). 4. The Activity Incharge was the same AD. 5. The claims were verified by the same officers. 6. These officers were also included in the committee to examine the claims. 7. No application from M/s IBEX International for payment of claim was received but the same was also processed and paid. 8. No supporting evidences, details of vehicles, DSRs etc. were available on record. 9. Verification of Army officer was without stamp. In view of the above, the payment so made is held unjustified and doubtful. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that the liability of Haji Ghulam Mustafa was stopped due to non-verification of Pakistan Army. Later on the contractor approached to Governor KP and other stakeholders for request of pending payment. However, after verification by Pak Army and thoroughly checking at appropriate forum, the payment was released. 76

The reply is not acceptable as the issues regarding award of contract by Ex- AD and Ex-Finance Officer without involvement of the then DG FDMA, payment of claim without supporting evidences and payment to M/s IBEX International without any claim are not addressed. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the matter be investigated to fix responsibility for award of contract without observing codal formalities and action taken against responsible besides recovery under intimation to Audit.

(PDP No. 1229, FDMA 2017-18) 4.3.2 Unjustified payment for work not covered in contract agreement – Rs. 14.872 million As per clause-1 of contract agreement dated 14.10.2014 executed between FDMA and M/s Sarhad Tents Services, the contractor was liable to provide cooked food to the Temporarily Displaced Families of Bara Sub Division Khyber Agency. As per clause-7, the contractor will be responsible for provision of cooked food within registration area and no other claim will be entertained other than registration areas. M/s Sarhad Tents Services were paid Rs. 14.872 million (vide cheque No. A-196352 dated 14.10.2017 for Rs. 8.372 million and Cheque No. A-197421 dated 08.02.2018 for Rs. 6.500 million) on account of a claim submitted for provision of cooked food to the staff of FDMA, Health Department, Police, Levies and Khasadar. A probe into the matter revealed that the contractor submitted a bill dated 16.12.2014 for Rs. 15.756 million as detailed below: Bill No. Particular Amount (Rs.) 102 Supply of food to the staff w.e.f. 20.10.2014 to 11.11.2014 2,433,200 103 Supply of food to the staff w.e.f. 12.11.2014 to 04.12.2014 4,067,000 104 Construction of Bath rooms, provision of Banners and water pump 374,700 105 Provision of heavy duty Generator 300,000 107 Provision of Tent Service items 8,590,950 Total 15,765,850 The said bill was not entertained by FDMA at that time with the remarks that “the bills relates to food provided to the staff of Health Department, Police, Levies and Khasadar and may be submitted to Political Agent Khyber for Payment”. 77

Accordingly, the claim was forwarded to the PA Khyber Agency vide letter dated 25.08.2015. The Political Agent Khyber Agency vide letter dated 19.06.2017 replied that the services of contractor were neither hired by them nor work order issued, therefore, the claim did not relate to political administration and could not be processed. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 14.872 million was paid by FDMA after rationalization of the total claim. Audit holds that the contract was awarded for supply of cooked food to the TDPs not the staff of Political Administration /other departments. Further, services provided through bill No. 104, 105 & 107 were not covered in contract agreement. In view of the above, the payment made to the contractor is held unjustified and irregular. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that a committee is constituted for investigation and to dig out the real picture. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that the findings of the committee be shared with Audit besides recovery of full amount from the contractor or the person(s) held responsible.

(PDP No. 1230, FDMA 2017-18)

4.3.3 Non forfeiture of bid securities – Rs. 4.210 million As per Rule-26 (3) of PPRA Rules 2004, the procuring agency shall ordinarily be under an obligation to process and evaluate the bid within the stipulated bid validity period. However, under exceptional circumstances and for reason to be recorded in writing, if an extension is considered necessary, all those who have submitted their bids shall be asked to extend their respective bid validity period. Such extension shall be for not more than the period equal to the period of the original bid validity. As per sub clause 4 (c), the bidders who do not agree to an extension of the bid validity period shall be allowed to withdraw their bids without forfeiture of their bid bonds or securities.

As per Rule-36 (c) (iv) the procuring agency may revise, delete, modify or add any aspect of the technical requirements or evaluation criteria, or it may add new requirements or criteria not inconsistent with these rules provided that such revisions, deletions, modifications or additions are communicated to all the bidders equally at the time of invitation to submit final bids, and that sufficient time is allowed to the bidders to prepare their revised bids. As per sub clause (c) (v) of Rule-36, those bidders not willing to conform their respective bids to the procuring agency’s technical requirements may be allowed to withdraw from the bidding without forfeiture of their bid security. A gallop tender notice for the purchase of 8,000 family tents of 4x4 meters was issued on 19.08.2017. The bids alongwith 5% bids security and a sample tent were to be submitted to FDMA on or before 11.09.2017. After evaluation of technical proposal / sample, the financial proposal was to be opened on 28.09.2017. A technical subcommittee was constituted to check and evaluate documents of the bidders and to submit report by 13.09.2017. After evaluation by technical subcommittee, the procurement committee selected four suppliers. The samples were sent to the PCSIR laboratory for water proofing and GSM test and as per report dated 26.09.2017 only one firm (M/s Universal Trading Corporation) could qualify whose tent was not leaked. The procurement committee in its meeting dated 27.09.2017 decided to open financial bid of only one qualified bidder and the rest to be returned unopened. M/s Universal Trading Corporation vide letter dated 28.09.2017 withdrew their financial bid and requested to return the earnest money. Accordingly, the bid security amounting to Rs. 4.120 million was returned to the firm. Audit holds that after completion of technical evaluation, the withdrawal of bid by the firm was irregular particularly when no other competitor existed. Accordingly, the bid security should have been forfeited which was not done. Similarly, financial bids of various suppliers / contractors for supply of 3,000 gas cylinders were opened on 01.01.2018 and rate offered by M/s Advance Business Components (ABC) was approved as lowest. Later on supplier regretted to supply the items on its approved rates. The work order was issued to the 2nd lowest firm. No clause as to punitive actions against supplier / contractor in case of failure to fulfill the contractual obligations was incorporated in contract agreement. 79

Audit holds that bid security of the contractor for Rs. 89,820 (2% of bid cost) was required to be forfeited besides black listing the firm which was not done. This resulted into undue favor to the contractors / suppliers due to non- forfeiture of bid securities for Rs. 4.210 million (Rs. 4,120,000 + Rs. 89,820). The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that the tender was published for several times in order to attract the competition and save public money but no good response was received. Since tents are a major item in procurement history of FDMA and the concern bidder has not committed major quotation. Therefore, just to create environment of trust, bid security was not forfeited and it was unanimously decided by procurement committee. As regards Advance Business Components, 2% security has already been forfeited. The reply is not acceptable as the bidder requested to withdraw financial bid after completion of bidding process, hence his bid security should have been forfeited. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that non-forfeiture of bid securities be investigated and responsibility be fixed on the persons at fault. As regards the forfeiture of bid security of M/s Advance Business Components, the deposit challan duly verified by the Federal Treasury be produced for verification. The clause of penalty in case of non- fulfillment of contractual obligation may also be incorporated in all future contracts.

(PDP No. 1232, FDMA 2017-18)

4.3.4 Irregular payment of honorarium / incentive – Rs. 43.849 million According to FR 46 (b) “A competent authority can sanction honorarium to a Government servant for doing certain work subject to the condition that the work is occasional in character, so laborious or of such special merit as to justify special reward”.

According to S.No.17 of Annex-I of System of Financial Control and Budgeting 2006, the amount of honorarium should not exceed one months’ pay of the government servant concerned on each occasion. In the case of recurring honoraria, 80 this limit applies to the total of recurring payments made to an individual in a financial year and the power will be exercised subject to the condition that the relevant rules and policy instructions issued by the Finance Division from time to time are duly observed.

According to Rule 10 (i) of GFR Vol-I, every public officer is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys, as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.

FDMA paid an amount of Rs. 41.774 million as incentive / honorarium during the financial year 2017-18 to the staff of FDMA, M/o SAFRON, contingent staff of Bakka Khel camp and various other departments as detailed at Annexure-XIX.

Further, FDMA paid an amount of Rs. 2.509 million on account of honorarium to the officers of FMDA for more than one month’s pay as detailed at Annexure-XX

Audit holds that funds released were meant for relief of TDPs and payment of honorarium to staff of ministries, contingent staff of FDMA / Bakka Khel Camp and other departments is irregular. Moreover, no certificate from the concerned ministries / departments for non-payment of honorarium from their regular budget was obtained to avoid duplication. Further, the complete payment record pertaining to payment of honorarium was not made available to Audit for scrutiny.

The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that all these persons were engaged with TDPs day and night because the situation was an emergency. The staff was facilitated to their good and best work done by them for the welfare of TDPs. Amount of Rs. 7 million has been released by SAFRON under the subject head Honorarium which was paid to the staff with the approval of competent authority. As regards payment of honorarium for more than one month pay, it was stated that cheque bearing No A-197569, 70,68,72,73,71 and 59 were not issued / paid to the officers / officials while other cheques were paid with the approval of the competent authority. The reply is not convincing as the payment was made to the staff of ministries, contingent staff of FDMA / Bakka Khel Camp and other departments 81 which was irregular. Further, the release of Rs. 7 million was not merely for honorarium but also for POL, Petty cash for camp Manager, water supply and camp management expenses, repair & maintenance of camp and TA/DA of staff for six months from January to June 2018. Further, the record produced to Audit indicated the payment of said cheques. However, no documentary evidence regarding cancellation of these cheques was provided in support of their reply. The payment of honorarium for more than one month’s pay was made in violation of clear instructions of the Government. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that irregular payment of honorarium / incentive be investigated to fix responsibility bedside recovery of overpaid amount from the officers concerned.

(PDP No. 1233 & 1235 FDMA 2017-18)

4.3.5 Irregular payment to CLCP staff out of emergency funds – Rs. 11.600 million Rule-9 of GFR Vol-I states that as a general rule no authority may incur any expenditure until the expenditure has been sanctioned by an authority to which power has been duly delegated in this behalf and the expenditure has been provided in the authorized grants and appropriations for the year. Rule-12 of GFR requires that a controlling officer must see not only that the total expenditure is kept within the limits of the authorized appropriation but also that the funds allotted to spending units are expended in the public interest and upon objects for which the money was provided. An amount of Rs. 11.600 million was paid to the Political Agents of 4 agencies on account of salaries for the staff of Citizen Losses Compensation Program (CLCP) for the month of Feb-April 2017 out of emergency funds (Assignment A/c No. 023041-1). The record revealed that staff of CLCP was hired by concerned Political Agents for survey of houses and MIS activities in FATA under Project Manager Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Unit (RRU) FATA Secretariat. All the activities of CLCP were managed by political administration and funds were paid by FATA Secretariat. The Program Manager RRU intimated FDMA that funds were not available with FATA Secretariat to meet the expenses of salaries and other contingent 82 expenditure of CLCP staff after April 2017 and requested for release of funds. The DG FDMA released the funds as detailed below:

S # Cheque No. Date Paid To Amount (Rs.) 1 A-196354 04.10.2017 Political Agent Khyber Agency 2,400,000 2 A-196355 04.10.2017 Political Agent South Waziristan Agency 2,400,000 3 A-196356 04.10.2017 Political Agent North Waziristan Agency 2,400,000 4 A-196358 04.10.2017 Political Agent Kurram Agency 2,400,000 5 A-357401 08.06.2018 Political Agent North Waziristan Agency 2,000,000 Total 11,600,000 Audit holds that emergency fund was meant for relief activities. Payment of salaries to the staff hired for CLCP activities cannot be paid from the emergency fund. Thus, payment made to the political administration on account of salaries of CLCP staff is irregular. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that payment is made to CLCP staff on understanding that the funds will be refunded by RRU. Payment in this regard is stopped and a letter is also sent to RRU for refunds of funds. The management accepted the violation of rules. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that irregular practice be stopped forthwith besides the amount be recouped and deposited into Government treasury under intimation to audit. The irregularity also be regularized by the orders of the competent authority.

(PDP No. 1234, FDMA 2017-18)

4.3.6 Loss due to non-deduction of sales tax from contractor – Rs. 2.379 million According to schedule-II, Section-19 of the KP Finance Act 2013, sales tax @ 16% will be charged on services provided or rendered by hotels, marriage halls, lawn, clubs, caterers and services ancillary thereto. FDMA Peshawar paid an amount of Rs. 14.882 million to M/s Sarhad Tents Services for supply of food to the staff, construction of bath rooms, provision of tent service items, banners and generator etc. vide cheque No. A-196352 dated 14.10.2017 for Rs. 8.372 million and Cheque No. A-197421 dated 08.02.18 for Rs. 6.500 million.

Audit observed that sales tax amounting to Rs. 2.379 million was not deducted from the claim of contractor. This resulted into loss of Rs. 2.379 million to Govt. exchequer due to non- deduction of applicable taxes. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that section 19 schedule II. KP Finance Act 2013 does not attract this payment. The work has been carried out in emergency. The with- holding tax deducted at high rate. The said supplier is not liable for sale tax deduction under the provision of Sale Tax Act 1990. The reply is not acceptable. As per Second schedule to Section-19 of KP Finance Act, 2013 sales tax was liable to be deducted which was not done. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends to fix responsibility besides recovery of sales tax from the contractor or the person(s) held responsible for non-deduction of sales tax under intimation to Audit. (PDP No. 1236, FDMA 2017-18)

4.3.7 Irregular procurement of non-food items without advertisement – Rs. 7.743 million As per PPRA Rule 12(2), all procurement opportunities over two million rupees should be advertised on the Authority’s website as well as in other print media or newspapers having wide circulation. The advertisement in the newspapers shall principally appear in at least two national dailies, one in English and the other in Urdu. The management of FDMA purchased the following non-food items from different firms during 2017-18 without advertising the demand in the newspapers and PPRA’s website:

Work Order No. Unit S. Quantity Amount Name of firm Item Name (FS/FDMA/Procurement Rate No. purchased (Rs.) /2017/--) (Rs.) 1 Afroz Traders Gas Cylinders 7779-86 dated 10.07.2017 1,090 1,000 1,090,000 Advance 2 Business Pedestal Fans 7690-96 dated 10.07.2017 2,850 1,000 2,850,000 Component Sharif Sons 3 Hygiene Kits 76645 dated 11.07.2017 679 1,000 679,000 Mardan 4 M/s Supply Lota 7683-89 dated 10.07.2017 30 3,000 90,000 5 Zone Jerry Can -do- 135 2,000 270,000 7697-7703 dated 6 Mattress 410 2,000 820,000 M/s Pearl 10.07.2017 7 Associates Pillows -do- 150 2,000 300,000 8 Quilts 3601-5 dated 19.10.2017 672 2,000 1,344,000 9 Pillows -do- 150 2,000 300,000 Total 7,743,000 Audit holds that the procurement without observing PPRA rules was irregular. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that the firms were prequalified for the year 2016-17. Due to emergency, bad weather and to facilitate the TDPs, the firms were tasked to provide the NFIs on previous rates which they agreed. The reply is not convincing as the repatriation of Khost families was planned from January 2017 while the procurement was made in July 2017. There was sufficient time to make procurement observing the rules which was not done. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that responsibility be fixed for making irregular purchases in violation of PPRA rules. (PDP No. 1237, FDMA 2017-18) 4.3.8 Irregular purchase of different items from a firm under inquiry – Rs. 2.764 million Rule-19 of PPRA rules, 2004 provides that the procuring agencies shall specify a mechanism and manner to permanently or temporarily bar, from participating in their respective procurement proceedings, suppliers and contractors who either consistently fail to provide satisfactory performances or are found to be

85 indulging in corrupt or fraudulent practices. Such barring action shall be duly publicized and communicated to the Authority provided that any supplier or contractor who is to be blacklisted shall be accorded adequate opportunity of being heard. The record pertaining to procurement of tents revealed that 5 prequalified firms by NDMA including M/s Pearl Associates were requested vide letter dated 05.05.2017 to offer their rates alongwith samples on 16.05.2017 for the procurement of 4,000 family tents (4x4 meters). The minutes of the purchase committee meeting dated 16.05.2017 indicated that only two firms i.e. M/s Universal Trading Corp. and M/s Pearl Associates responded and after thorough checking; the specification of tents was found correct. However, the Chairman procurement committee informed that firm M/s Pearl Associates was under inquiry at FATA Secretariat due to supply of substandard tents to FDMA, hence its financial bid could not be considered at this stage and be returned unopened. On the other hand, Audit observed that following items of Rs. 2.764 million were purchased from the said firm: S. No. Purchase Order No. & Date Item Unit Rate (Rs.) Quantity Amount (Rs.) FS/FDMA/Procurement/2017/ 1 Mattress 410 2,000 820,000 7697-7703 dated. 10.07.2017 2 -do- Pillows 150 2,000 300,000 FS/FDMA/Procurement/3601- 3 Quilts 672 2,000 1,344,000 5 dated. 19.10.2017 4 -do- Pillows 150 2,000 300,000 Total 2,764,000 Audit is of the view that purchase of items from a firm against which an inquiry was already under process due to supply of substandard tents is unjustified and irregular and against the canons of financial propriety. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that the said firm was under inquiry for the reason that the firm had supplied 4,500 substandard tents but it is pertinent to mention here that the items were purchased as mentioned in the observation was processed before the initiation of the inquiry as the firms was prequalified. Still the firm is working with different govt. institutions and was not black listed by the higher authority.

The reply is not convincing as the same firm was rejected in May 2017 for supply of family tents due to provision of substandard tents to FDMA and was under inquiry. On the other hand, procurement of Rs. 2.764 million was made from the same firm which is unjustified. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that matter be investigated to fix responsibility for making procurement from a firm already under inquiry due to provision of sub-standard tents.

(PDP No. 1239, FDMA 2017-18) 4.3.9 Irregular expenditure due to non-obtaining of vouched accounts from C&W – Rs. 165.00 million According to Rule 668 of CTR “Advances granted under special orders of competent authority to Government officers for departmental or allied purposes may be drawn on the responsibility and receipt of the officers for whom they are sanctioned, subject to adjustment by submission of detailed accounts supported by vouchers or by refund, as may be necessary”. FDMA Peshawar released an amount of Rs. 165.00 million to the Executive Engineer C&W, FATA Division, Bannu for various civil works at TDP Camp Bakha Kahil. It was observed that the supporting documents i.e. PC-I, administrative approval, demand bill, details of civil works carried out, progress reports, completion reports etc. were not available with FDMA. The respective department had also not rendered the accounts against these releases. Moreover, sanction of competent authority for release of payment was also not available on record. When demanded, it was intimated that the record is lying with NAB. The detail of releases is as under: S. Cheque Amount Date Payment made for # No. (Rs.) 1 14.07.17 38489574 Repair & Maintenance 15,000,000 2 22.08.17 45126276 Repair & Maintenance 30,000,000 3 02.01.18 14963551 Construction of 1,000 compounds 53,024,000 4 19.02.18 14963433 Construction of boundary wall 846,000 5 20.03.18 38489232 Construction of 1,000 Compounds 66,103,000 Total 164,973,000

In the absence of relevant record the authenticity of the expenditure could not be ascertained. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that the subject para is submitted to C&W department Bannu for provision of documents as mentioned. The same documents will be provided as and when received. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that relevant record be produced to audit for verification. (PDP No. 1241, FDMA 2017-18) 4.3.10 Irregular payments through cash instead of crossed cheques – Rs. 12.310 million According to Para 2.3.2.8 of Accounting Policies & Procedures Manual, to minimize the risk of fraud and corruption, payments shall be made through direct bank transfer and cheques. An amount of Rs. 10.105 million was paid to the Camp Incharge of Bakha Khail for miscellaneous expenses i.e. repair & maintenance, purchase of stationary item, sanitary works, payment of wages to labour etc. during 2017-18. The camp inchagre further made payments to the vendors in cash instead of cross cheques. No acknowledgement / receipt thereof was available on record. A few instances of cash payments (Rs. 11.252 million) are given at Annexure-XXI. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 1.058 million as detailed at Annexure-XXII was drawn on account of TA / DA for Staff out of funds provided by SAFRON Division in the name of DDO/DG. The relevant record viz. approved tour program, vouchers /bills, acknowledgement etc. was not available with the claims. Audit holds that payment through cash instead of cheques is against the canon of financial discipline and chances of misappropriation cannot be ruled out. The matter was pointed out on 02.10.2018. In their reply dated 3rd December 2018, the management stated that payment to camp manager/agency coordinator has been made from misc. expenditure as the camp is situated in FR Bannu where no banks or other cash facility is available. However, for timely payments to vendor,

88 payments have been made for misc. expenditure which is less than Rs. 25,000 on single bill. Therefore, to avoid delay in response as most of the bills/vouchers relating to Pak Army which need frequent payment instead of payment through account. The observation has been noted for future compliance. The reply is not acceptable as the payments in cash are contrary to the Govt. rules and instructions. No DAC meeting could be arranged till finalization of this report. Audit recommends that responsibility be fixed for making irregular payments through cash instead of crossed cheque in violation of Government instructions on the subject besides stopping the practice forthwith.

(PDP No. 1242, FDMA 2017-18)

Annexures MFDAC

Annexure-I S. AP/ PDP FY Name of Subject No. No. Formation 1 1096 2017-18 ERRA HQ, Irregular procurement of physical assets in violation to PPRA Rules – Non-Dev. Rs. 281,363 Fund 2 1097 2017-18 -do- Under-staffing of internal audit wing and non-conducting of internal audit 3 1100 2017-18 -do- Wasteful expenditure on account of maintenance of ERRA’s office lawn - Rs. 2.032 million 4 1101 2017-18 -do- Non-deduction of LD on delayed supply of 20 KWA generator - Rs. 289,609 5 1110 2017-18 -do- Irregular Payment of Various Allowances - Rs. 31.045 million 6 1112 2017-18 -do- Less deduction of ICT tax on services Rs. 223,458 7 1113 2017-18 -do- Irregular appointment to the post of Steno-typist 8 1118 2017-18 -do- Irregular/inadmissible payment of allowances to non- combatant bearer (NCBs) - Rs. 97,723 9 1119 2017-18 -do- Non-reflection of requisite information on the pay slips 10 1083 2017-18 -do- Unjustified expenditure on procurement of server - Rs. 1.346 million 11 1088 2017-18 -do- Wastage of public money due to non-achievement of objectives of PST & PMT - Rs. 94.289 million 12 1090 2017-18 -do- Irregular expenditure on POL and repair of vehicles of PST & PMT projects - Rs. 3.273 million 13 1091 2017-18 -do- Irregular hiring of field offices and payment of Rs. 1.550 million 14 1093 2017-18 -do- Irregular payment of arrears of pay and allowances – Rs. 1.382 million 15 1094 2017-18 -do- Irregular grant of cash award – Rs. 390,100 16 1095 2017-18 -do- Non-conducting of physical verification of store/stock items 17 1124 2017-18 MCDP Excess payment to the contractor due to application of higher rate - Rs. 1.364 million 18 1126 2017-18 -do- Non recovery of financial assistance advance - Rs. 99.828 million 19 1127 2017-18 -do- Non encashment of bank guarantees against financial assistance advance - Rs. 563.080 million 20 1130 2017-18 -do- Inadmissible payment due to non-utilization of available stone - Rs. 4.233 million 21 1131 2017-18 -do- Inadmissible payment on account of formation of embankment due to non-utilization of available material - Rs. 31.048 million 22 1136 2017-18 MCDP Inadmissible payment on account of formation of embankment – Rs. 19.981 million 23 1137 2017-18 -do- Un-authorized issuance of taken over certificates and performance certificates (DLP) and release of performance guarantees of incomplete projects Rs. 214.541 & $ 3.150 million and non-imposition of LD on 90

incomplete projects Rs. 518.231 million 24 1138 2017-18 -do- Over payment on account of carriage of unsuitable material - Rs. 26.160 million 25 1139 2017-18 -do- Over payment on account of carriage of unsuitable material - Rs. 503,019 26 1140 2017-18 -do- Over payment on account of carriage and excavation Rs. 223,479 27 1141 2017-18 -do- Double payment on account of carriage of un-utilized material Rs. 101,789 28 1142 2017-18 -do- Un-authorized payment on account of cutting hard rock Rs. 449,524 29 1144 2016-18 DDR Undue favour to the contractor due to temporary overpayment on Battagram account of execution of items of works – Rs. 29.648 million 30 1145 2016-18 -do- Irregular payment due to non-revalidation of performance guarantee – Rs. 57.857 million 31 1147 2016-18 -do- Excess payment due to less deduction for utilization of available hard rock – Rs. 3.480 million 32 1148 2016-18 -do- Doubtful payment of earthwork due to non-laying of sub base – Rs. 78.768 million 33 1149 2016-18 -do- Unjustified execution of works after issuance of DLC and irregular payment after expiry of performance guarantee - Rs. 3.763 million 34 1150 2016-18 -do- Irregular expenditure after expiry of PC-I – Rs. 6.83 million 35 1153 2016-18 -do- Overcasting of Revised PC-I due to applying incorrect item rates – Rs. 15.618 million 36 1154 2016-18 -do- Overpayment due to duplication of same area / quantities in measurement sheets – Rs. 0.895 million 37 1155 2016-18 -do- Overpayment due to non-utilization of available material – Rs. 1.035 million 38 1156 2016-18 -do- Overpayment due to non-provision of insurance cover 39 1157 2016-18 -do- Less recovery on account of Water Bound Macadam Base – Rs. 1.071 million 40 1158 2016-18 -do- Irregular payment for works without provision in Revised PC-I – Rs. 0.504 million 41 1161 2017-18 NDMA Misclassification of expenditure due to charging to irrelevant head of account - Rs. 6.835 million 42 1162 2017-18 -do- Irregular Expenditure on Ex-gratia Financial Assistance due to Non- observance of Codal Requirements Rs. 2.800 Million 43 1163 2017-18 -do- Unjustified award of contract for boundary wall at NDMA plot due to non-fulfillment of codal requirements - Rs. 9.432 million 44 1164 2017-18 -do- Non-imposition of Penalty Due to Delay in Completion of Works - Rs. 131,993 45 1165 2017-18 -do- Split of expenditure on repair maintenance of warehouse - Rs. 1.319 million 46 1166 2017-18 -do- Execution of Various Works without Approval / NOC from PWD Rs. 750,307 47 1171 2017-18 -do- Non-deduction of Income Tax on Honoraria Rs. 347,511 48 1173 2017-18 -do- Irregular payment of medical re-imbursement claims - Rs. 11.030 91

million 49 1174 2017-18 -do- Unjust Expenditure on Uniform without Codal Requirements Rs. 786,022 50 1175 2017-18 -do- Irregular expenditure on consultancy charges due to non-fulfilling of codal requirement - Rs. 5.229 million 51 1177 2017-18 -do- Misuse of operational vehicles and irregular payment of POL cost - Rs. 3.737 million 52 1180 2017-18 -do- Improper maintenance of vehicle log books and drawing POL cost - Rs. 4.119 million 53 1181 2017-18 -do- Unjust Expenditure on Demolishing of Army Barracks Amounting to Rs. 428,000 54 1182 2017-18 -do- Irregular drawing of pay and allowances due to non-fulfillment of codal requirements 55 1183 2017-18 -do- Non-maintenance of Cash Book and Cheque Register 56 1184 2017-18 -do- Unverifiable expenditure on overtime due to non-availability of bio metric attendance record - Rs. 1.150 million 57 1185 2017-18 -do- Over Payment of GST to Contractor on Purchase of Computers - RS. 68,612 58 1186 2017-18 -do- Irregular Payment of Hiring of Residential Accommodation Other than Owners of Houses Rs. 429,000 59 1187 2017-18 -do- Irregular award of contract of tents without observing codal requirements – Rs. 51.915 million 60 1188 2017-18 -do- Irregular Payment of Difference of Rental Ceiling to Employees Instead of Owners – RS. 343,269 61 1189 2017-18 -do- Wastage of NDMA Funds on Holding of Cultural Show Rs. 400,000 62 1190 2017-18 -do- Irregular Payment of Rent for Residential Accommodation on Enhanced Rates Rs. 103,022 63 1191 2017-18 NDMA Splitting of expenditure on account of purchase of furniture & fixture – Rs. 1.018 million 64 1193 2017-18 -do- Improper Maintenance of Appropriation Account/Budget Control Register/ Ledger 65 1196 2016-18 DDR Irregular payment without grant of EOT and non-imposition of LD - Kohistan Rs. 3.136 million 66 1198 2016-18 -do- Overpayment due to double payment of works – Rs. 1.700 million 67 1199 2016-18 -do- Overpayment without measurement and non-accountal of amount already paid to the contractor – Rs. 3.121 million 68 1200 2016-18 -do- Irregular expenditure without Geo Technical Investigation – Rs. 36.441 million 69 1201 2016-18 -do- Non-imposition and recovery of Liquidated damages - Rs. 3.929 million 70 1202 2016-18 -do- Loss due to non-effecting of insurance – 6.092 million 71 1203 2016-18 -do- Irregular expenditure without revised PC-I and Technical Sanction - Rs. 59.686 million 72 1204 2016-18 -do- Overpayment due to cutting / overwriting of premium offered by contractor – Rs. 2.463 million 92

73 1212 2016-18 DDR, Excess payment due to excess execution of concrete class-B than the Mansehra revised BOQ - Rs. 1.654 million 74 1215 2016-18 -do- Excess expenditure on account of execution of extra quantities of items of works – Rs. 10.452 million 75 1216 2016-18 -do- Unjustified payment for item of work not provided in PC-I – Rs. 2.784 million 76 1217 2016-18 -do- Overpayment for excess quantity of work than actually executed – Rs. 440,880 77 1218 2016-18 -do- Non award of remaining work of terminated contract at the risk & cost of the defaulting contractor 78 1220 2016-18 DDR, Undue favour to contractor due to non-imposition of LD – Rs. 42.039 Abbotabad million 79 1222 2016-18 -do- Undue favour to the contractor due to release of 50% retention money and non-submission of statement at completion – Rs. 14.378 million 80 1223 2016-18 -do- Overpayment due to incorrect measurements – Rs. 4.764 million 81 1225 2016-18 -do- Doubtful payment on account of sub grade preparation in earth cut – Rs. 1.515 million 82 1226 2016-18 -do- Overpayment on account of formation of embankment without measurement – Rs. 1.060 million 83 1227 2016-18 -do- Undue favor to contractor by allowing earthwork on entire length of roads and subsequent termination of contracts – Rs. 136.358 million 84 1231 2017-18 FDMA Unauthentic/unjustified payment on account of transportation charges – Rs. 46.56 million and overpayment of Rs. 0.936 million due to calculation mistake 85 1238 2017-18 -do- Irregular utilization of funds – Rs. 4.239 million 86 1240 2017-18 -do- Non-submission of monthly accounts to AG office – Rs. 219.212 million 87 1243 2017-18 -do- Improper maintenance of Cash Books and paid Vouchers 88 1244 2017-18 -do- Non achievement of targets of PC-I of FDMA 89 1245 2017-18 -do- Improper maintenance of stock register / record for Relief Items – Rs. 202.455 million

Annexure-II Irregular payment of allowances to army personnel- Rs. 2.569 million Unifor Hair Cutting/ m All. Washing All. Journey All. (One (Rs.) Ration All. (Rs.) (Rs.) S. time in Per Per Per Period No. Name of Officers/Officials a Year) Month Total Month Total Month Total Allowance 1 N/Sub Clk Muhammad Yousaf 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 2 N/sub Clk Raza Muhammad 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 3 N/Sub Clk Muhammad Hussain 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 4 N/sub Clk Rashid Mehmood 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 months 10 months 5 N/Sub Zulfiqar Ali 5,152 925 9,836 2,860 30,410 300 3,190 & 19 days 6 Hav/Clk Noor Un Nabi 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 7 Hav/Clk Umer Azam 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 8 Hav/Clk Muhammad Shahid 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 9 Hav/SMT Arshad Mehmood 5,152 925 6,475 2,860 20,020 300 2,100 07 months 10 Dfr/Clk Ch Muhammad Zia Ul Haq 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 11 Hav/Clk Sajjad Haider 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 12 hav/Clk Aamir Sultan 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 13 Dfr/Clk Asad Iftikhar Arshad 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 14 Hav/DMT Muhammad Younis 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 15 Nk/Clk Muhammad Mushtaq 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 16 Nk/Clk Muhammad Mumtaz 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 17 Nk/Clk Muhammad Rehman 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 10 months 18 Nk/Clk Naveed Aslam 5,152 925 9,681 2,860 29,933 300 3,140 & 14 days 11 months 19 Nk/Clk Asif Ali 5,152 925 10,606 2,860 32,793 300 3,440 & 14 days 20 Nk/Clk Nawaz Muhammad 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 21 Nk/Clk Shah Jahan 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 22 Nk/MT Muhammad Arshad 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 23 Nk/MT Aman Ullah 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 24 Nk/MT Zahoor Ahmed 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 25 Nk (Op Sign) Ijaz Ali 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 26 Nk/SMT Iftikhar Ali 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 27 L/Hav (Op Sig) Azmat Ullah 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 28 L/Hav/GD Zahid Mehmood 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 08 months 29 Nk (Op Sigs) Saleem Shah 5,152 925 7,770 2,860 24,024 300 2,520 & 12 days 30 Nk/MT Muhammad Nazeer 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 31 Nk/MT Muhammad Asghar-I 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 32 Nk/MT Manzoor Ahmed 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 33 Nk/MT Adeel Ahmed 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 34 Nk/MT Ghafoor Ahmed 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 35 Nk/FS Muhammad Imran 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 36 Nk/MT Muhammad Asghar-II 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 37 Lnk Muhammad Ismail 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 38 Sep/Clk Sohail Zafar 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 94

39 Sep/MT Muhammad Qasim 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 40 Lnk/MT Muhammad Rafiq 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 41 Lnk/MT Tariq Zaman 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 42 Lnk/MT Muhammad Saeed Anjum 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 43 Lnk/MT Ashiq Hussain 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 44 Sep/DMT Usman Ullah 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 45 Lnk Muhammad Asif Khan 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 02 months 46 Lnk Nasir Khan 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 02 months 47 Sep/MT Adnan Ahmed 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 48 ALD Abdul Raziq 5,152 925 11,100 2,860 34,320 300 3,600 12 months 03 months 49 Sep/Ck Khalid Hussain 5,152 925 3,114 2,860 9,627 300 1,010 & 11 days Total 252,448 45,325 524,782 140,140 1,622,567 14,700 170,200 G. Total 2,770,162

Annexure-III Irregular allotment of vehicle to contract staff– Rs. 2.351 million Repair S. Engine Reg. No. Detained with POL (Rs.) Exp. No. Capacity (Rs.) 1 GT-979 2982 Brig (R ) Zafar Hussain Wahla, DG 130,525 81,994 2 X-68-3565 1300 Brig (R ) Ahsan, DG P-I 188,803 48,338 3 GJ-444 1299 Col (R ) Rana Shujaat Ali 189,358 68,050 4 GT-569 1328 Col (R ) Imtiaz, DDG SPC 195,605 20,000 5 GB-072 1299 Mr. Vakeel Ahmed Khan, Adv Legal 186,490 5,390 6 GE-972 1300 Mrs. Shazia Haris, Adv. Media 188,841 131,110 7 X-68-3624 1300 Lt. Col. (R ) Sheryar Niamat, Dir (MIE&QC AJ&K) 177,796 30,050 8 GE-076 993 Lt. Col. (R ) Saadat Janjua, Evaluator / Dir Coor 140,263 10,722 9 GU-492 993 Lt. Col. (R ) Akhtar Ahmed, Dir KMC 126,636 33,560 10 GF-137 993 Lt. Col. (R ) M. Latif Khan, Admin / Fin. Officer 141,437 54,620 Lt. Col. (R ) Masood Ahmed, Dir (M&E) PC 11 GE-072 993 GOP/CC Tech 134,217 67,549 Total 1,799,971 551,383 Grand Total 2,351,354

Annexure-IV MISCLENIOUS RECEIPTS IN ERRA FUND ACCOUNT S. Amount No. Description (Rs.) 1 Cash deposit on A/C of bidding from PC SPC, ERRA 10,360 Cheque received from chief engineer KPK on A/C of auctions of un-serviceable 2 items 53,000 3 Refund of salary of Mr. Muhammad Akhtar (DMO) left ERRA 16,461 4 Refund of salary of Mr. Khurram Abbas (O.M) due to death 53,227 5 Transfer of un-spent balance from A/C No 2458-2 (CIF) DRU Poonch, SERRA 135,894 95

Refund of un-due salary of director coordination SERRA vide cheque No. 6 00000002 dated 26.09.17 erroneously transferred 221,779 Cash deposited by SPC against advance of Rs. 200,000 vide cheque No. 7 12516983 dated 05.10.17 out of ERRA fund 122,760 Overpayment received from Mr. Shams uz Zaman (Ex-Director) Rs. 150,000 8 Chief Engineer, PERRA 150,000 9 Cash deposited by SPC dated 10.11.2017 28,694 Cheque received from DRUs Abbottabad Mansehra and Shangla Kohistan at Abbottabad on A/C of auctions of un-serviceable items vide cheque No. 10 02532202 dated 30.11.2017 46,000 11 Closure of PMU-BCDP auctions of items dated 10.01.2018 31,920 12 Theft of Govt. vehicle No. A-1556 77,877 Bidding fee of THQ Hospital Abbaspur received from DRU Poonch vide 13 cheque No. 43648169 dated 20.02.2018 70,000 14 Cash deposited by SPC against Advance dated 03.05.2018 130,685 15 Encashment of CDR 3,000,000 16 Refund of salary from Chief Engineer, PERRA 67,000 Cheque received from PMIU, SFD &KF Muzaffarabad against advance vide 17 cheque No. 02267437 dated 11.06.2018 122,356 18 Cash deposited by SPC against advance dated 29.06.2018 123,286 4,461,299

Annexure-V Expenditures/Payments S # Month ERRA FUND A/c 14-5 1 July 2017 32,218,894 2 Aug. 2017 27,022,710 3 Sep. 2017 26,633,340 4 Oct. 2017 242,393,202 5 Nov. 2017 62,038,687 6 Dec. 2017 234,273,360 7 Jan. 2018 30,335,393 8 Feb. 2018 34,214,156 9 Mar. 2018 32,526,377 10 Apr. 2018 32,526,377 11 May 2018 38,475,474 12 June 2018 34,540,430 Total 827,198,400

Annexure-VI S. Design- Salary Salary Over Total for Name PC-1 Remarks No. ation drawn due claimed 2017-18 1 Equal to PPS-4 & BPS 11-13. Date of appointment 16.08.2016 (initial Rs. 30,000+ Rs. 1,500 one Rao Rehan Steno PMT 42,000 31,500 10,500 126,000 increment) 2 Mr. Nafees Civil Equivalent to PPS-7 Murtaza Engineer -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 & BPS-17 3 Zeshan Hayat -do- -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 --do-- 4 Lt. Col (R) Khan Civil Bhadur Engineer -do- 175,000 90,000 85,000 1020,000 -do- 5 Lt. Col (R) Masood Ahmed -do- -do- 175,000 90,000 85,000 1020,000 -do- 6 Lt. Col (R) Tahir Pervaiz Dar -do- -do- 175,000 90,000 85,000 1020,000 -do- 7 Col(R) Imtiaz Ahmed -do- -do- 175,000 90,000 85,000 1020,000 -do- 8 Resident/ Zahid Mahmood Civil Abbasi Engineer PST 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 -do- 9 Electric Engineer/ Junaid Khalid MEP -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 -do- 10 Resident/ Lt. Col (R) M. Civil Ijaz Engineer -do- 175,000 90,000 85,000 1020,000 -do- 11 Farukh Saleem Khan -do- -do- 175,000 90,000 85,000 1020,000 -do- 12 Muhammad MDC Hussain Manager -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 -do- 13 Brig (R) Zafar Senior Equal to BPS-19 in Hussain Wahla Manager -do- 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 other depts. 14 Capa- Equal to BPS-19 Chief city initial pay 175,000. Maj (R) Coordina- Build Pay in PC-1 Rs. Nawazish Khan tor -ing 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 201,500. 15 Col (R) Aamir Advisor Mohsin MIS -do- 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 -do- 16 Samreen Murtaza Master Equal to BPS-17 (pay Khan Trainer -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 fixed in BPS-18) 17 Abdul qayum Training khan Coordi- -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 -do- 97

nator 18 Equal to Bs-19. Initial Advisor pay Rs. 175,000. Pay Shazia Hariz Media -do- 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 in PC-1 Rs. 201,500. 19 Equal to PPS-4 & BPS 11-13. Date of appointment 22.12.2008. Initial pay Rs. 30,000+ Rs. Masood Ahmed Photo- 13,500 (1500*9) one Khan grapher -do- 81,000 43,500 37,500 450,000 increment 20 Master Equal to BPS-17. Pay Tariq Akram Trainer -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 fixed in BPS-18 21 Equal to BPS-19. Initial pay Lt. Col( R) Obaid Advisor Rs. 175,000. Pay in ur Rehman Malik HR -do- 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 PC-1 Rs. 201,500. 22 Equal to BPS-18. Initial pay Lt. Col( R) DRR Rs. 125,000. Pay in Akhtar Ahmed Expert -do- 175,000 125,000 50,000 600,000 PC-1 Rs. 139,500. 23 Equal to BPS-19. Chief Initial pay Rs. Brig ( R) Ahsan Coordi- 175,000. Pay in PC-1 Ullah Khan nator -do- 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 Rs. 201,500. 24 Equal to BPS-18. Initial pay Rs. linkages 125,000. Pay in PC-1 Nabeela Javid Incharge -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 Rs. 93,000. 25 Sector Equal to BPS-18. Col ( R) Rana Coordi- Initial pay Rs. Shujat Ali nator -do- 175,000 125,000 50,000 600,000 125,000. 26 Equal to BPS-17. Initial pay Rs. 90,000. M. Shahbaz System Pay in PC-1 Qasir Anylist -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 Rs. 116,250 27 Equal to PPS- & BPS- 16. Date of appointment Furniture 22.08.2011. Initial expert/Ins Pay Rs. 60,000+ Rs. Naseem ul Ghani pector -do- 125,000 78,000 47,000 564,000 18,000 (6 increment) 28 Wasim Akhtar Qurashi -do- -do- 125,000 78,000 47,000 564,000 -do- 29 Vakil Ahmed Advisor -do- 250,000 175,000 75,000 900,000 Equal to Bs-19. Initial 98

Khan Legal pay Rs. 175,000. Pay in PC-1 Rs. 201,500. 30 Sector Equal to BPS-18. Lt. Col( R) Coordi- Initial pay Rs. Sharyar Niamat nator -do- 175,000 125,000 50,000 600,000 125,000. 31 Equal to BPS-17. Initial pay Rs. 90,000. Munir Hassan Program Pay in PC-1 Khan Officer -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 Rs. 94,500. 32 Equal to BPS-17. Admn/Fin Initial pay Rs. 90,000. Lt. Col( R) M. ance Pay in PC-1 Rs. Latif Khan Officer -do- 125,000 90,000 35,000 420,000 93,000. 20,964,000

Annexure-VII

100

Annexure-VIII

101

Annexure-IX

Annexure-X Bid Date of LD (Rs. S. Pkg Cost Date of Name of Scheme Contractor Name Award of in No. . # (Rs. in Completion contract million) million) 1 Oghi Darban Road (Km 11 to 14) I M/s Trand Construction Co. 03.08.2015 79.212 03.08. 2016 7.92 M/s Ghulam Sadiq & 2 Oghi Darban Road (Km 15 to 18) II 03.08. 2015 77.617 03.08. 2016 7.76 Muhammad Sultan (JV) M/s Mehboob Ali Govt. 3 Oghi Darban Road (Km 23 to 26) IV 12.08. 2015 77.979 12.08. 2016 7.80 Contractors M/s Zahid Bashir Govt. 4 Oghi Darban Road (Km 27 to 30) V 07.03. 2016 59.137 07.03. 2017 5.91 Contractors 5 Oghi Darban Road (Km 31 to 35) VI M/s Ghulam Sadiq JV 07.03. 2016 72.764 07.03. 2017 7.28 M/s Zahid Bashir Govt. 6 Oghi Darban Road (Km 19 to 22) III 24.05. 2017 59.137 24.05. 2018 5.91 Contractors 102

Bandi Parao to Chamial Gorian M/s Muhammad Irshad 7 I 14.12. 2016 65.589 14.12. 2017 6.56 Gali Road Khan Bandi Parao to Chamial Gorian 8 II M/s Zahid Bashir 14.12. 2016 57.979 14.12. 2017 5.80 Gali Road Bandi Parao to Chamial Gorian 9 III M/s Zahid Bashir 14.12. 2016 63.014 14.12. 2017 6.30 Gali Road Mangloor to Balhag Bala Balhag 10 I M/s Ghulam Sadiq 14.12. 2016 69.939 14.12. 2017 6.99 Payeen Road Mangloor to Balhag Bala Balhag 11 II M/s Ghulam Sadiq 14.12. 2016 76.684 14.12. 2017 7.67 Payeen Road M/s Tarand Construction & 12 Palm Gali Khabal Road (4 Km) III 14.12. 2016 67.649 14.12. 2017 6.77 Co 13 Palm Gali Khabal Road (3.5 Km) V M/s Rustam Khan 14.12. 2016 54.289 14.12. 2017 5.43 M/s Tarand Construction & 14 Palm Gali Khabal Road (3 Km) VI 14.12. 2016 59.921 14.12. 2017 5.99 Co. Total 94.09 Annexure-XI

Length of S. No. of road as Road Bid Cost S. Name of Name of Package Date of Annexure per awarded (Rs. in Remarks No. Road contractor No. award 6B strategy (Km) million) (Km) Mangloor to Balhag Bala M/s Ghulam 1 138 4.5 I 69.939 14.12.2016 Balhag Sadiq & Co. 4 Payeen 2 138 -do- -do- 4.8 II 76.684 14.12.2016 4 km 9.3 km Palm Gali Completed Attahullah Khan 3 139 Khabbal 2.5 - 10.941 31.12.2008 / handed Trand & Co. Road over Terminated Pakhal 4 139 --do-- 2.5 - 10.065 22.12.2008 during Construction Co. 2011 Trand 16 5 139 --do-- 4 III 67.649 14.12.2016 Construction Co. M/s Ghulam 6 139 --do-- 4.5 IV 75.849 14.12.2016 Sadiq 7 139 --do-- M/s Rustam Khan 3.5 V 54.289 14.12.2016 Trand 8 139 --do-- 3 VI 59.921 14.12.2016 Construction Co. 16 km 20 km

103

Annexure-XII (Amount in Rs.) Hair Fuel / P.M. Road to Designation Ration Total per Total per Employee Name cutting Electricity Sectt. CILB Journey & BPS All. month annum All. Subsidy All. All. Lt Gen Omer B-22 79,600 893 80,493 965,916 Mehmood Hayyat Brig Mumtaz Member /20 61,850 893 62,743 752,916 Ahmed Lt Col Khuda Director/19 48,600 893 49,493 593,916 Baksh Maj Amjad Ali Dy. Dir/18 32,000 893 32,893 394,716 Maj M Amjad Iqbal Dy. Dir/18 32,000 893 32,893 394,716 Sq Ldr Hamid Dy. Dir/18 32,000 893 32,893 394,716 Shehzad Maj Waqas Zafar S.O/18 32,000 893 32,893 394,716 Lt Com Nadeem Dy. Dir/18 32,000 893 14,000 46,893 562,716 Bashir N Sub Clk Asstt. Mohammad Naseer Private 867 4,285 17,140 2,768 1,800 300 27,160 325,920 Khan Secretary/16 Hav Gulzar Ahmed -do- 867 3,950 15,800 2.768 300 20,920 251,037 Hav Shehzad 867 3,260 13,040 2,768 300 20,235 242,820 Ahmed Lnk SMT M Stenotypist / 867 2,113 8,450 2,768 300 14,498 173,976 Saleem Shehzad 14 Hav Allah Nawaz -do- 867 2,880 11,520 2,768 300 18,335 220,020 Hav Clrk Dur -do- 867 2,880 11,520 2,768 300 18,335 220,020 Mohammad Lnk SMT Zahid -do- 867 2,113 8,450 2,768 300 14,498 173,976 Iqbal-1 Nk Clk Mumtaz Ali -do- 867 2,690 10,760 2,768 300 17,385 208,620 Lnk Clk Shuakat -do- 867 2,463 9,850 2,768 300 16,248 194,976 Hussain Hav Clk Rustam -do- 867 3,145 12,580 2,768 300 19,660 235,920 Ali N Sub Aziz Ullah -do- 867 4,285 17,140 2,768 1,800 300 27,160 325,920 Hav SMT Aziz Ur -do- 867 3,367 13,500 2,768 300 20,802 249,624 Rehman Hav Clk Haq -do- 867 3,720 14,880 3,720 300 23,487 281,844 Nawaz Hav Clk Dost -do- 867 3,605 14,420 2,768 300 21,960 263,520 Mohammad Hav Clk Thial Tab -do- 867 2,685 10,470 1,500 300 15,822 189,864 104

Khan Hav Clk -do- 867 3,720 14,880 2,768 300 22,535 270,420 Mohammad Latif NK SMT Shakeel UDC / 11 867 3,070 12,280 2,768 300 19,285 231,420 Ahmed Computer NK Ops Sig Operator / 867 3,570 11,900 2,768 300 19,405 232,860 Mohammad Afzal 12 Nk Clk Mohammad UDC / 9 867 4,484 11,160 2,768 300 19,579 234,948 Naveed NK Clk Khazar -do- 867 3,342 11,140 2,768 300 18,417 221,004 Khan Nk Clk Abdul UDC / 11 867 3,342 11,140 2,768 300 18,417 221,004 Rehman Lnk Saqib Gunman / 9 867 2,745 9,150 2,768 300 15,830 189,960 Mehmood Nk MT Khaliq Dad LDC / 9 867 3,270 10,900 2,768 300 18,105 217,260 Sep Sig Yasir khan -do- 867 2,270 7,400 2,768 300 13,605 163,260 L Hav DSV Mumtaz Ali Drv / 9 867 3,912 13,040 2,768 300 20,887 250,644 Khashkheli L Nk Zahid Iqbal-II LDC / 7 867 2,892 9,640 2,768 300 16,467 197,604 Lnk MT Mohammad Asif -do- 867 2,892 9,640 2,768 300 16,467 197,604 Nawaz Lnk SMT Faqir -do- 867 2,535 8,450 2,768 300 14,920 179,040 Mohammad Lnk SMT -do- 867 2,535 8,450 2,768 300 14,920 179,040 Mohammad Ashraf Lnk Clk Yousuf -do- 867 3,060 10,200 2,768 300 17,195 206,340 Khan Lnk MT Azhar Drv / 7 867 2,955 9,850 2,768 300 16,740 200,880 Hussain Lnk Mushtaq LDC / 7 867 2,640 8,800 2,768 300 15,375 184,500 Ahmed Lnk SMT -do- 867 2,535 8,450 2,768 300 14,920 179,040 Mohammad Ijaz Lnk Clk Ali Raza -do- 867 2,745 9,150 2,768 300 15,830 189,960 Sep MT Tanveer Drv / 7 867 2,700 9,000 2,768 300 15,635 187,620 Abbass Lnk MT -do- 867 2,796 9,320 2,768 300 16,051 192,612 Mohammad Khalid Lnk MT Abdul -do- 867 2,892 9,640 2,768 300 16,467 197,604 Ghaffar Sep Masood -do- 867 2,796 9,320 2,768 300 16,051 192,612 105

Ahmed U Lnk Munir LDC / 7 867 3,084 10,280 2,768 300 17,299 207,588 Ahmed Khan Lnk Tariq Idrees Drv / 7 867 2,796 9,320 2,768 300 16,051 192,612 Lnk MT Asif Iqbal -do- 867 2,796 9,320 2,768 300 16,051 192,612 Lnk MT Zahid -do- 867 2,796 9,320 2,768 300 16,051 192,612 Iqbal Total (Rs.) 13,515,045 Annexure-XIII Employee Name Deputation Food Dress Fuel / P.M Road to Special Total per All. (Rs.) All. All. Electricity Sectt. Journey All. year (Rs.) Subsidy (Rs.) All. All. (Rs.) Altaf Hussain 3,046 550 250 1,935 6,450 300 150,372 Shoaib Ahmed 3,310 550 250 2,115 7,050 300 162,900 Sabir Hussain 3,310 550 250 2,115 7,050 300 162,900 Touseef Ahmed 2,386 550 1,485 4,950 112,452 Muhammad 171,960 3,640 550 2,340 7,800 Ramzan Nazir Ahmed 2,650 550 1,665 5,550 1,325 140,880 Total 901,464

Annexure-XIV

Dated Applied Per Extension Initial Period Name of Desig - Applied Period Parent month Extension Period Period of extended Remarks Employees BPS for in Deptt Salary Period Pay &All. Deputation by& dated extension Years Rs Rs NOC from parent 08.08.2014 Member 02.05.2017 Deptt for Shah N/Q to 02 03.05.2017 PWD 48,749 (A & F) to 1169,976 further Hussain BPS-1 07.08.2017 Years 17.07.2017 01.05.2019 extension (3 years) not obtained 01.10.2014 Deputy -do- 01.10.2017 Tahir N/Q to 02 Director 23.08.2017 AGP 33,468 to 401,616 Badsha BPS-1 30.09.2017 Years (Admn) 30.09.2019 (3 Years) 16.11.2017 Zakir Asstt 09.01.2014 27.10.2016 1 (Year) EAD 54,241 Director 09.01.2017 1301,784 -do- Hussain (BPS- to (admn) to Abbasi 16) 08.01.2017 31.01.2018 08.01.2018 (3 Years) & 08.01.2018 to 07.01.2019 Amir Assista 16.04.2014 31.03.2017 1 (year) Estt 61,954 Dy 16.04.2018 743,448 Approval 106

Shahzad nt to Division Director to from (BPS- 14.04.2017 Admn 15.04.2019 competent 16) (3 Years) 29.03.2018 authority not taken Rao UDC 30.06.2014 31.03.2017 1 Years Pakistan 34,943 Director 30.06.2017 419,316 -do- Noman (BPS- to Post (Admn) to Amjad 09) 29.06.2017 Office 31.03.2017 29.06.2017 (3Years) Shoaib LDC 11.06.2014 25.04.2018 1 Years Federal 34,774 Director 11.06.2017 417,288 -do- Naz (BPS- to Directorate (Admn) to10.06.20 07) 10.06.2017 of 11.03.2018 18 (3 Years) Education Total 4,453,428

Annexure-XV

months Total Approved Govt. Designation/ excess Name of Employees Rent by Period w.e.f Ceiling Diff. BPS Drawn NDMA Rent Rent Rs. Member 3 M. Idrees 53000 15.03.18 to 14.6.18 31,806 21,194 63,582 DRR(20) Lt. Col. Khuda Bakhsh Director (19) 45,000 12.08.17 to 11.5.18 9 25,326 19,674 177,066 Safwan Ullah Khan Director (19) 45,000 01.01.18 to 30.6.18 6 25,326 19,674 118,044 Mrs. Raheela Saad Member (20) 55000 1.1.18 to 30.12.18 12 31,806 23,194 278,328 Lt. Col Raza Iqbal ® Director (19) 45,000 30.12.17 to 29.6.18 6 25,326 19,674 118,044 Col. M Tariq Mehmood ® Director (19) 45,000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 25,326 19,674 118,044 Zafar Iqbal Director (19) 45,000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 25,326 19,674 118,044 Maj. Imran Rafique D. Dir.(18) 40000 1.9.17 to 30.11.17 3 19,049 20,951 62,853 Syed M. Ayub Shah -do- 40000 4.9.17 to 28.2.18 6 19,049 20,951 125,706 M.Razi -do- 40000 1.2.18 to 30.4.18 3 19,049 20,951 62,853 Affaf Riaz Rasool Malik -do- 40000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 19,049 20,951 125,706 Maj. Zeeshan Haider ® -do- 40000 10.8.17 to 9.8.18 12 19,049 20,951 251,412 Major Amjid Ali -do- 40000 15.9.17 to 30.6.18 9 19,049 20,951 188,559 Saqib Mumtaz -do- 40000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 19,049 20,951 125,706 M. Razi -do- 40000 1.8.17 to 31.7.18 12 19,049 20,951 251,412 Hamid Shahzad -do- 40000 1.3.18 to 31.5.18 3 19,049 20,951 62,853 Maj Amjad Ali -do- 40000 15.9.17 to 14.6.18 9 19,049 20,951 188,559 Lt. Col. Syed Eusaf Viqar -do- 15000 1.8.17 to 30.4.18 9 19,049 (4,049) (36,441) Nafees ur Rehman DDO (18) 40000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 19,049 20,951 125,706 S.O to 15 Maj. Waqas Zafar 40000 1.5.17 to 30.7.18 19,049 20,951 314,265 Chairman (18) A.Director 9 Tahir u Din 39000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 19,049 19,951 179,559 (17) Akbar Bacha -do- 40000 19.9.17 to 18.3.18 6 19,049 20,951 125,706 107

Abdul Latif -do- 35000 4.9.17 to 3.6.18 9 19,049 15,951 143,559 Maqsood Ullah Khan -do- 40000 19.7.17 to 18.7.17 12 19,049 20,951 251,412 Bushra Hassan -do- 40000 16.7.17 to 15.4.18 9 19,049 20,951 188,559 Imran Aslam -do- 20000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 19,049 951 5,706 Nasrullah Brohi -do- 40000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 19,049 20,951 188,559 Ahmed Naveed Malik -do- 40000 13.10.17 to 12.6.18 9 19,049 20,951 188,559 Abid Shehzad PS (17) 25000 23.12.17 to 22.6.18 6 19,049 5,951 35,706 A. Director 3 Zaheer ud Din 40000 20.2.18 to 19.5.18 19,049 20,951 62,853 (17) Ms. Maryam Taj Din -do- 40000 20.9.17 to 19.6.18 9 19,049 20,951 188,559 Mazhar Hayat APS (16) 20000 14.7.17 to 13.4.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 M. Naseer Khan N.Sub (16) 15000 1.1.18 to 30.6.18 6 14,391 609 3,654 Khadam Hussain APS (16) 20000 15.6.16 to 14.6.18 12 14,391 5,609 67,308 Hazrat Gul -do- 20000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Tahir Rehman Hashmi -do- 20000 9.8.17 to 8.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 M. Amir -do- 20000 27.9.17 to 31.5.18 8 14,391 5,609 44,872 Zahid Iqbal -do- 20000 10.10.17 to 9.6.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Maqbool Ahmed -do- 20000 10.10.17 to 9.7.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Sr. Auditor 9 Shah Naz Ahmed Shah 20000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 14,391 5,609 50,481 (16) Amir Shahzad Assistant (16) 20000 1.7.17 to 30.6.18 12 14,391 5,609 67,308 Rizwan Riasat -do- 20000 06.9.17 to 5.3.18 6 14,391 5,609 33,654 Bushra kiran -do- 20000 8.6.17 to 7/8/18 12 14,391 5,609 67,308 Raja Waqar Ali -do- 20000 1.1.18 to 31.3.18 3 14,391 5,609 16,827 M.Waheed Qureshi -do- 20000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Syed Mudassir Mehdi 12 -do- 20000 11.7.17 to 10.7.18 14,391 5,609 67,308 Shamsi M. Anees Steno (14) 20000 11.9.17 to 10.7.18 10 14,391 5,609 56,090 M. Latif -do- 20000 1.2.18 to 30.4.18 3 14,391 5,609 16,827 M.Saleem Shahzad Lnk.SMT (14) 10000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 14,391 (4,391) (39,519) Junaid Khan Steno (14) 20000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Comp. Opt 9 Muzammil Khurshid 15000 14.9.17 to 31.5.18 11,455 3,545 31,905 (12) Ahtisham ul Haq -do- 15000 20.6.17 to 19.5.18 11 11,455 3,545 38,995 Admn NCO 15 Shahzad Ahmed 20000 1.5.17 to 31.7.18 14,391 5,609 84,135 (14) Aziz ur Rehman H.Clerk (14) 20000 18.7.17 to 17.6.18 11 14,391 5,609 61,699 Gulzar Ahmed -do- 20000 13.7.17 to 11.7.18 12 14,391 5,609 67,308 Rustam Ali -do- 20000 13.8.17 to 12.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Dur Muhammad -do- 20000 26.8.17 to 6.8.18 12 14,391 5,609 67,308 Dost Muhammad -do- 20000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Haq Nawaz -do- 20000 9.9.17 to 8.6.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Khial Tab Khan -do- 20000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 M. Shaban Lnce.Hav (12) 10000 1.8.17 to 18.5.18 9 11,455 (1,455) (13,095) 108

Mumtaz Ali Nk.Clk (11) 15000 1.9.17 to 30.6.18 10 11,455 3,545 35,450 M. Naveed UDC (11) 15000 3.7.17 to 2.7.18 12 11,455 3,545 42,540 Abdul Rehman UDC (9) 10000 20.8.17 to 19.5.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Fayyaz Ali -do- 10000 1.2.18 to 31.7.18 6 7,594 2,406 14,436 Rao Noman Amjad -do- 10000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Shavayo Mal -do- 10000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 6 7,594 2,406 14,436 Wajahat Rehman -do- 10000 15.8.17 to 14.5.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Allah Nawaz Havaldar (14) 20000 26.8.17 to 25.5.18 9 14,391 5,609 50,481 Khazar Khan Nk/Clk (11) 15000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 11,455 3,545 31,905 Shaukat Hussain LDC (7) 10000 1.8.17 to 31.7.18 12 7,594 2,406 28,872 Zafar Ali -do- 10000 6.7.17 to 5.7.18 12 7,594 2,406 28,872 Yasir Khan -do- 10000 11.12.17 to 10.6.18 6 7,594 2,406 14,436 M. Ashraf -do- 10000 4.7.17 to 3.4.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Zahid Imran -do- 10000 15.8.17 to 14.5.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 M. Ishaq -do- 10000 1.7.17 to 29.9.17 3 7,594 2,406 7,218 Dil Murad Khan Driver (7) 10000 15.8.17 to 10.2.18 6 7,594 2,406 14,436 Tariq Idrees -do- 10000 20.6.17 to 19.6.18 12 7,594 2,406 28,872 M. Tariq -do- 10000 5.8.17 to 4.2.18 6 7,594 2,406 14,436 M. Asif -do- 10000 15.7.17 to 14.6.18 12 7,594 2,406 28,872 Asif Iqbal -do- 10000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Abdul Ghaffar -do- 10000 5.11.17 to 5.8.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Azhar Hussain -do- 10000 26.9.17 to 25.6.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Masood Ahmed -do- 10000 26.12.17 to 25.6.15 6 7,594 2,406 14,436 M. Boota -do- 10000 1.7.17 to 30.6.18 12 7,594 2,406 28,872 Said Rauf -do- 8000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 7,594 406 3,654 Hamid -do- 8000 1.9.17 to 31.5.18 9 7,594 406 3,654 Zahid Iqbal -do- 10000 1.12.17 to 30.6.18 7 7,594 2,406 16,842 Munir Ahmed Khan -do- 10000 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 7,594 2,406 21,654 Shah Hussain N/Q (4) 9000 1.9.17 to 31.3.18 7 5,083 3,917 27,419 Nazakat Ali N/Q (1) 5000 15.9.17 to 31.3.18 6 3,254 1,746 10,476 Mubeen Miraj -do- 5000 1.10.17 to 31.3.18 6 3,254 1,746 10,476 Khalid Mehmood -do- 6250 1.8.17 to 30.4.18 9 3,254 2,996 26,964 Tariq Aziz -do- 5000 1.8.17 to 30.4.18 9 3,254 1,746 15,714 Asad Ali -do- 6250 1.10.17 to 31.3.18 6 3,254 2,996 17,976 Tariq Hussain Shah -do- 6250 1.10.17 to 30.6.18 9 3,254 2,996 26,964 Naveed Ahmed -do- 5000 1.8.17 to 30.4.18 9 3,254 1,746 15,714 Mujeeb ur Rehman -do- 6250 1.8.17 to 30.4.18 9 3,254 2,996 26,964 Rana M. Suhail -do- 6250 1.1.18 to 31.3.18 3 3,254 2,996 8,988 Nasir Mehmood -do- 6250 11.7.17 to 31.3.18 9 3,254 2,996 26,964 M. Sharafat Khan -do- 6250 1.12.17 to 31.3.18 4 3,254 2,996 11,984 6,588,911

109

Annexure-XVI S. Name Designation/BPS Period Total No. Drawing (Rs.) 1 Waqas Ahmed Jnr. Asst (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 224,294 2 Waqas Ali Jnr. Asst (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 224,294 3 Said Arshad Ali Bacha Jnr. Asst (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 209,538 4 Hassam Durrani Jnr. Asst (BS-04) 25.11.2017 to 30.06.2018 141,682 5 Shumail Zia Jnr. Asst (BS-04) 24.02.2018 to 30.06.2018 48,964 6 Walid Jamal Jnr. Asst (BS-04) 28.05.2018 to 30.06.2018 70,095 7 Muhammad Akram Store Clerk (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 224241 8 Muhammad Majid Store Clerk (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 224,241 9 Shah Nawaz Store Clerk (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 224,241 10 Imtiaz Ali Store Clerk (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 230,921 11 Sultan Mehmood Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 12 Mazhar Mehmood Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 13 Saleem ud Din Qureshi Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 14 L/Hav (R) Abdul Rashid Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 15 Hav (R) Rehamn Gul Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 16 Majid Zulqarnain Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 17 Nk (R) Shahzad Khan Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 18 Ehsan Shafique Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 56,810 19 Sepoy (R) Sarfraz Masih Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 20 Khalid Samoon Driver (BS-04) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 226,060 21 Adil Sajjad Driver (BS-04) 28.05.2018 to 30.06.2018 24,306 22 Muhammad Imran Driver (BS-04) Oct 17 to Nov 17 25,305 23 Ghayoor Abbas N/Q (BS.01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 24 Irfan Zafar N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 25 Javed Iqbal N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 26 SadiqNiaz N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 27 Imran Bhatti N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 197,451 28 Shahid Mehmood N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 29 Muhammad Naveed N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 30 Muhammad Rashid Khan N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 31 Aakash N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 32 Shahzad Nazir N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 33 Muhammad Abbas N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 34 Asmat Ali N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 35 Tilawat Khan N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 36 Shahzad Anwar N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 37 HaroonRaza N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 38 HyaturRehman N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 39 Tehseen Khan N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623

110

40 Raja Muhammad Usman N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 41 Dilawar Khan N/Q (BS-01) 28.11.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 42 Malik TanveerHussain N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 43 Rahim Dad Khan N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 44 Noor Muhammad N/Q (BS-01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 217,623 45 Ummer Habib N/Q (BS-01) 28.11.2017 to 30.06.2018 138,142 46 Mohammad Waqas Sanitary Worker (B 01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 47 HaroonMasih Sanitary Worker (B 01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 48 Muhammad Tahir Security Guard (B 01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 49 Hav (R) Muhammad Ali Anjum Sanitary Worker (B 01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 50 Zota Khan Mali (BS 01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 51 Muhammad Asif Mali (BS 01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 52 Adnan Masih Sweeper BS (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 212,273 53 Dilawar Khan Sweeper BS (01) 01.12.2017 to 30.06.2018 126,992 10,482,051

Annexure-XVII (B) Detail of drawing of NCBs and Security Guard Pay S. Total Drawing Name Designation/BPS Period No. (Rs.) 1 Lnk Saqib Mehmood Gunman (9) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 588,757 2 Ghulam Yasin NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 12,225 3 Altaf Hussain NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 385,929 4 Sabir Hussain NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 412,329 5 Shoaib Ahmed NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 412,329 6 Rao Sajjad Ahmed NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 186,335 7 Tousef Ahmed NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 257,391 8 Muhammad Ramzan NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 338,811 9 Nazir Ahmed NCB (01) 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 165,202 Total 2,759,308 Grand Total (A+B) 10,482,051+2,759,308=13,241,359 Annexure-XVIII Per month Period (in Amount Name of Employees Designation /BPS ceiling (Rs.) months) drawn (Rs.) Col® Tariq Mehmood Director(19) 45,000 12 540,000 Lt Col ® Raza Iqbal Director(19) 45,000 12 540,000 Lt. Col ® Nadeem Malik Dy. Director(18) 40,000 12 480,000 Eng. Syed Ayub Shah Dy. Director(18) File not produced -

Major ® Zeeshan Haider Dy. Director(18) 40,000 12 480,000 Nasurullah Brohi Asstt. Director (17) 40,000 12 480,000 Maryam Taj Din Asstt. Director(17) 40,000 12 480,000 Ahmed Naveed Malik Asstt. Director(17) 40,000 12 480,000 111

Hazrat Gul APS(16) 20,000 12 240,000 Khadim Hussain APS(16) 20,000 12 240,000 Muhammad Waheed Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Nabila Ashfaq Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Iftakhar Gul Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Ali Hassan Raja Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Bushra Kiran Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Akhtar Niazi Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Syed Mudassir Shamsi Assist.(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Junaid Khan Steno(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Muhamad Anees Steno(14) 20,000 12 240,000 Ahtisham ul Haq Comp Opr(12) 15,000 12 180,000 Shavayo Mal UDC(09) 10,000 12 120,000 Sulaiman Khan UDC(09) 10,000 12 120,000 Wajahat Rehman UDC(09) 10,000 12 120,000 Mujammad Bilal UDC(09) 10,000 12 120,000 M. Saqib Qureshi UDC(09) 10,000 12 120,000 Fayyaz Ali UDC(09) 10,000 12 120,000 Zahid Imran LDC(07) 10,000 12 120,000 Touqir Ahmed LDC(07) 10,000 12 120,000 Hamid Driver(04) 9,000 12 108,000 Zafar Hussain Driver(04) 9,000 12 108,000 Shah Nawaz N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 M. Nouman N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 M. Rameez N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 Ghulam Murtaza N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 Khalid Mehmood N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 Imtiaz Haider N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 Mubeen Miraj N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 Taimour Ahmed N/Q(01) 6,250 12 75,000 8,076,000 Annexure-XIX S # Date Paid To Amount (Rs.) 1 06.09.2017 DG/DDO a/c incentives to staff of FDMA 3,354,630 2 06.09.2017 Incentives to staff of FDMA 14,015,824 3 13.09.2017 Muhammad Yaqoob SAFRON 40,000 4 13.09.2017 Abdul Jalil SAFRON 20,000 5 13.09.2017 Muhammad Iqbal SAFRON 41,000 6 28.09.2017 Mr. Ghulam Hussain Barvi AD Accounts SAFRON 50,000 7 28.09.2017 Muhammad Ali Abid, SAFRON 50,000 8 25.10.2017 Mr. Ghulam Hussain Bervi AD Accounts SAFRON 50,000 9 28.03.2018 DG/DDO a/c Incentives to Baka Khel Staff 1,447,000 Total (A) 19,068,454 112

10 04.06.2018 SAFRON Ministry 7,113,000 11 04.06.2018 CDA Staff Block 2,225,000 12 04.06.2018 AGPR Peshawar 1,530,000 13 04.06.2018 Minister Staff 1,525,000 14 04.06.2018 IDP Coordinator Staff 1,400,000 15 04.06.2018 F.A’s Organization 655,000 16 04.06.2018 Minister Staff 572,000 17 04.06.2018 AGPR Islamabad 533,000 18 04.06.2018 Police Staff Block 165,000 Total (B) 15,718,000 19 06.06.2018 PC-I Staff of FATA DMA 3,175,000 20 06.06.2018 FDMA HQ Staff 2,120,000 21 06.06.2018 FDMA Projects Staff 742,370 22 06.06.2018 Contingent Staff of Baka Khel Camp 950,000 Total (C) 6,987,370 Grand Total (A)+(B)+(C) 41,773,824 Annexure-XX

Over payment Sr. Amount (Rs.) Name Cheque No. Date Remarks No. (Rs.) (Payment made – Basic pay) i. A196425 22.11.2017 92,940 Account No. 21473-6 Mr. Saif Ullah Zafar AD ii. A197570 21.06.2018 46,470 Account No. 21473-6 Procurement (Basic Pay iii. A440004 27.06.2018 46,470 Account No.023041-1 Rs. 46,740) iv. 854671 06.06.2018 192,000 SAFRON Fund Total (a) 377,880 331,140 --- Mr. Siraj Ul Haq Director i. A197568 21.06.2018 161,000 Account No. 21473-6 General (Basic Pay Rs. ii. A440002 27.06.2018 161,000 Account No. 023041-1 80,560) iii. 81466 288,000 SAFRON Fund Total (b) 610,000 529,440 --- Mr. Nasir Durrani Director i. A197569 21.06.2018 111,000 Account No. 21473-6 Operation (Basic Pay Rs. ii. A440003 27.06.2018 111,000 Account No. 023041-1 55,570) iii. 50142575 200,000 SAFRON Fund Total (c) 422,000 366,430 --- Mr. Shujat Khan AD i. A197572 21.06.2018 76,000 Account No. 21473-6 Accounts (Basic Pay Rs. ii. A440006 27.06.2018 70,600 Account No. 023041-1 34,100) iii. 152323 150,000 SAFRON Fund Total (d) 296,600 262,500 --- Mr. Khalid Saleem IDP i. A197573 21.06.2018 100,000 Account No. 21473-6 Camp Incharge (Basic Pay ii. A440007 27.06.2018 100,000 Account No. 023041-1 Rs. 35,000) Total (e) 200,000 165,000 --- Mr. Lal Muhammad AD i. A197571 21.06.2018 65,000 Account No. 21473-6 Accounts (Basic Pay Rs. ii. A440005 27.06.2018 65,000 Account No. 023041-1 74,070) Total (f) 130,000 55,930 --- 113

i. A196424 22.11.2017 57,970 Account No. 21473-6 Mr. Muhammad Mukhtar

Director Finance (Basic ii. A197559 13.06.2018 115,000 Account No. 21473-6 Pay Rs. 57,970) Total (g) 172,970 115,000 --- Mr. Muhammad Riaz i. A196423 22.11.2017 99,660 Account No. 21473-6 Director Admn (Basic Pay ii. 400403 200,000 SAFRON Fund Rs. 49,830) Total (h) 299,660 249,830 Grand Total (a - h) 2,509,110 2,075,270 --- Annexure-XXI a. Cash Payments by FDMA to Camp Incharge Cheque No. Date Paid To Amount (Rs.) 38489569 13.07.2017 Mr. Sameen Ullah Camp Manager 158,000 38489585 17.07.2017 Mr. Sameen Ullah Camp Manager 203,590 38489601 27.07.2017 Mr. Sameen Ullah Camp Manager 124,000 38489613 02.08.2017 Mr. Sameen Ullah Camp Manager 128,034 14963577 11.01.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 95,179 14963467 12.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 303,673 14963471 12.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 165,000 14963500 20.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 544,673 38489230 20.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 44,319 38489233 20.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 96,000 38489238 28.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 87,500 38489241 28.03.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 271,043 38489255 05.04.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 333,503 38489303 02.05.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 840,921 38489331 21.05.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 707,970 38489345 25.05.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 369,890 70862561 04.06.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 549,325 70862579 11.06.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 324,760 70862583 22.06.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 272,000 70862590 22.06.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 441,065 70862604 29.06.2018 Mr. Khalid Saleem 466,972 45126286 09.07.2017 Mr. Imran khan wazir 152,580 38488831 05.10.2017 Mr. Imran khan wazir 220,030 38488848 23.10.2017 Mr. Imran khan wazir 318,400 38489620 02.08.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 72,828 38489620 02.08.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 72,828 45126259 07.08.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 3,750 45126312 14.09.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 87,650 45126337 28.09.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 156,187 45126350 02.10.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 88,910 38488897 20.11.2017 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 351,190 114

14963563 08.01.2018 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 525,517 14963410 12.02.2018 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 785,162 14963419 12.02.2018 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 43,609 14963479 12.03.2018 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 180,900 14963484 14.03.2018 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 326,936 38489293 13.04.2018 Mr. Shahzeb Khan 190,937 Total 10,104,831 b. Instances of Cash Payment by Camp Incharge Date Paid To Amount (Rs.) 17.07.2017 Master Carpet Bannu 95,000 17.07.2017 Purchase of paint 28,200 17.07.2017 Shah Paint Store 21890 02.08.2017 King Advertisers 85680 02.08.2017 Master Carpet Bannu 95,000 28.09.2017 GEO CCTV Service 38,800 22.10.2017 Najid Shoroom (25 Chairs) 25000 22.10.2017 Sadiq Book Depot 30000 22.10.2017 Ghafoor Hardware Bannu 41840 22.10.2017 Abbass Crockery Store (Kitichen Sets) 41600 22.10.2017 AlHaj Noor Aslam Electronics (UPS) 18000 22.10.2017 Aziz Tahir Sports Bannu (Shields) 15000 22.10.2017 Kamran Cloth Bannu (Green Cloth Role) 38000 12.02.2018 Kamran cloth Bannu (45 suits) 83,250 12.02.2018 IT Zone Computers Bannu 11,500 12.02.2018 Zahid Khan Sports Bannu 26,700 12.02.2018 Adil Decoration Bannu 45,000 08.01.2018 M/s Wahid Crockery & Tent Service 62,400 03.02.2018 M/s Kamran Cloth House 83,250 10.02.2018 M/s Sadiq Book Depot. 38,000 09.03.2018 M/s Azad Book Depot 40,358 16.03.2018 M/s New Sarhad Waziristan 87,000 16.03.2018 M/s Haji Muhammad Akbar & Co. 95,940 Total 1,147,408

115

Annexure-XXII Sr. No. Cheque No. Date Amount (Rs.) 1 38489587 19.07.2017 48,480 2 38489587 19.07.2017 48,480 3 38489592 25.07.2017 48,480 4 45126256 07.08.2017 18,750 5 45126262 08.08.2017 69,120 6 45126271 22.08.2017 26,480 7 45126273 22.08.2017 8,384 8 45126279 28.08.2017 56,992 9 45126279 28.08.2017 56,992 10 45126282 31.08.2017 44,640 11 45126310 13.09.2017 25,440 12 45126311 13.09.2017 46,960 13 45126325 26.09.2017 34,800 14 38488840 16.10.2017 27,840 15 38488843 18.10.2017 10,080 16 38488847 23.10.2017 10,080 17 38488878 02.11.2017 20,160 18 38488886 09.11.2017 17,984 19 38488890 14.11.2017 27,936 20 14963506 23.11.2017 28,800 21 14963507 24.11.2017 69,120 22 14963511 29.11.2017 69,600 23 14963515 30.11.2017 80,640 24 14963538 26.12.2017 40,320 25 14963539 26.12.2017 36,720 26 14963436 20.02.2018 84,480 Total 1,057,758

116