WB closes controversial PLA; another accounts scam simmers

Finance Minister Dasgupta maintains that opening and operating the PLAs did not violate the rules and that all other State Governments take resort to them. He, however, refuses to give details, arguing that the case is now sub judice.

Mamata Banerjeehad filed a case in the Calcutta High Court last August, alleging that the PLAs were the conduits through which several hundred crores of rupees had been misappropriated. The case is still pending with the court and there has been no hearing of the case after last September.

But Panchayat Minister Mishra, although as defiant, is a trifle more forthcoming. “We were forced to close the local funds because the Central Government threatened to stop releasing funds unless we did so and put the money in banks,” Mishra says. “But we have recorded our protest in a letter.” Like Dasgupta, he argues that the local funds had been there “since the Congress times and can’t be called illegal or unconstitutional.”

The State Government had been using the local funds to deposit funds for four Centrally sponsored programmes — Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, Indira Awas Yojna, Employment Assurance Scheme and Million Well Scheme. Even by Mishra’s admission, other State Governments kept the funds in bank accounts. The PLAs wereused to divert funds from approved budgets of the finance department.

The government’s critics, however, argue that closure of the PLAs and the local funds actually amounted to an admission of guilt. The move was also aimed at ducking further controversies first on the eve of the Lok Sabha elections last month and then the May 28 panchayat polls.

All Opposition parties in the State — the Congress, Trinamool Congress and the BJP — are going to make this a major issue during the panchayat poll campaign against the CPI(M). They have demanded a CBI probe into the alleged misappropriation of rural development funds.

The principal accountant general, Jyotirmoy Mandal, prepared a devastating report last December, charging the State Government with:

* “Non-compliance with the provision of Articles 202(2) (b), 149 and 150 of the Constitution of India, by non-refunding, at the close of the financial year, of unutilised PL accounts balance to consolidated fund of the State.”

* “Unauthorised retention ofpublic money drawn on abstract contingency bills and also money drawn for payment of pension.”

* “Hardly any justification for opening large numbers of personal ledger accounts.”

The report, prepared last December after inspections of six treasuries in the State, said that the “administrators of these PL accounts unauthorisedly retained Rs 75.34 crore at the end of March, 1995, Rs 66.14 crore in March-end, 1996 and Rs 228.91 crore at the end of March, 1997.” Not refunding these amounts to “the consolidated fund of the State was in violation of SR 411,” a subsidiary rule of the West Bengal Treasury Rules.

In short, the PAG charged the Government with violating the Constitution, the State Legislature and the sanctity of the budget. His argument was that the money kept in the PLAs was not shown in the State Budget and the balances at the year-end not returned to the budgeted fund for calculating the next year’s accounts.

Meanwhile, another storm seems to be brewing for the Marxists — this time inthe form of the audit report of the Zilla Parishad accounts. After the principal accountant general blasted the State Government on the personal ledger accounts, this time the deputy accountant general’s office has picked gaping holes in the ZP accounts from 1990 to 1994. Both reports are now awaiting approval by the office of the CAG. Mandal also initiated the audit for the ZP accounts. Of a huge backlog, he sought to scrutinise accounts for five years from 1990. But the deputy accountant general’s office, which carried out the job, could finish the audits for only four years.

Mandal had wanted to hire retired government auditors to expedite the job and was sanctioned a sum by CAG for that purpose. But the plan had to be abandoned in the face of stiff opposition from the Marxist-dominated employees’ association of the audit office. Mandal, who is waiting to take up his new assignment as Director-General, Audit next month, declined to comment but other sources confirmed that the audits had detectedirregularities in ZP accounts.

While pleading ignorance about the audit findings, Mishra argues that only district magistrates and block development officers can draw and disburse funds for ZPs and panchayat samitis. Panchayat functionaries handle funds only at the gram panchayat level, he adds.