Demands independent inquiry
Dimapur, August 17 (EMN): The ACAUT not satisfied with the reply by the finance department that was published in some local papers to its allegation today gave another rejoinder stating that the reply was an eyewash and demanded the department to provide proof that the money was not withdrawn based on the first 'drawal authority'.
"According to the OSD, Finance, the first drawal authority letter dated 17th April valid upto 20th April 2017 lapsed due to which Rs. 2854.97 lakhs could not be drawn thus necessitating the issuance of another drawal letter of the same amount, dated May, 2017. Be it as it may be the ACAUT demands that the OSD produce evidence that indeed no money was drawn in the first instance. Without producing evidence in his defence, the OSD should not be commenting in public. Therefore, only an independent inquiry committee should be able to get to bottom of the matter," stated the press rejoinder from ACAUT.
Replying to the allegations of ACAUT that there was enough evidence that a total of Rupees 57.09 crores was withdrawn just for the construction of a single bridge between Tizit and Mon, the OSD finance had clarified earlier that the second 'drawal authority' issued as the first one lapsed.
The ACAUT however also did not provide any evidence that the money was in fact withdrawn in both the cases although there is enough room for doubt on the issuance of two 'drawal authority' orders by the finance department.
It also rubbished the claim of the finance department on the use of the term 'Non-Developmental' as head of expenditure for non plan.
"As stated in our earlier press release, the two drawals authority totalling Rs. 57 Cr 9 lakhs were drawn under Non-Developmental heads; whereas in one of the drawals for construction of a bridge under E.E. Dimapur Division dated recently, that is, 3rd May 2017, amounting to Rs. 2447.17 lakhs, it was issued under State Plan.
Further, the Rs 12.52 Crore drawn on October 20, 2016, for construction of a bridge on Mon-Tizit road over River Tikang, was too under Non-Plan.
So, if there is a decision of the Central government to do away with the traditional classification of expenditure into State Plan and Non Plan as stated by the Finance Department, why was it classified as State Plan and Non-Plan in the above mentioned drawals?
This is nothing but heights of falsehood and deception.
The Finance Department also did not specify whether the Non-Developmental funding is under NEC, NLCPR, or under additional grant as should be the case," stated ACAUT.
On the withdrawal of Rs. 2854.97 lakhs that was issued in favour of EE PWD (R&B) South Division, Kohima and later transferred to Mon the ACAUT questioned why such a "long circuitous route" was taken when it could have been in favour of the counterpart at Mon.
"The OSD, Finance Department, should be careful about the masters he serves because the general public understands too well that the other name of the Finance Department has steadily evolved from '5% Commission Department' to now '30% Commission Department.' With elections fast approaching, the Naga people will not be surprised if the name is again changed to '50% Commission Department'," it stated.
It also stated that the PWD is yet to answer about the so-called 'Improvement of City Tower to DC Court Junction' project work amounting to Rs 20 Crore when the "stunning reality is that there is no road in this stretch".
