Need suggestion
ktrao
(Querist) 16 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
I have got one case and I want to know the legal view of experts from lawyersclubindia, details are as flows:-
1. For data processing job for meter reading, billing, bill distribution & meter surveillance from electricity department called a tender in 2002 and work was allotted to 3 agencies say agency “A”, “B”, “C” for the period of 2 years.
2. A) Here one more old agency “D” is exciting since 2001 for only to prepare billing & other revenue related reports (here meter reading, bill distribution is done by department)
b) previously in 2001 full area was awarded to agency “D” and in 2002 when new agency/billing system lunched urban area was reduced from agency “D” and allotted to agency “A to C”
3. After 2004 any tender was not floated/finalized by the department and time extension was granted time to time to all the agencies say A to D till Nov’2010
4. Between these years time to time departmental & AG audit was conducted & no mistakes or excess payment drawn cases was found
5. All of a sudden in aug’2010 a special 5 member team was established by the department to audit the work (meter reading, billing, bill distribution & meter surveillance) & all the payments made to agency (invoice since sept’2002 onwards)
6. After auditing by the team they have suggested/submitted (amount of recovery) the report to the department as flows:-
Agency “A” 1.6402 caror
Agency “B” 2.4684 caror
Agency “C” 1.8965 caror
7. But for agency “D” they written only this “for the work of billing we found in preliminary findings a recoverable amount will be 70-80%”.
8. By mentioning serial no 6 & 7 a FIR was lodge and FIR was field/booked with IPC section 406, 420, 467, 469, 471, 34.
Now the query is for agency “D” …………………………
1) What is his stand now
2) What he can do to avoid arrest or to get anticipatory bail
3) Why he was accused when department was released payment uptill july’2010 and last 4 month’s (aug’10 to nov’10 payment is under process)
4) Whom/How to approach for a justice…….
Thank you in advance for your valuable solution………………..
ajay sethi
(Expert) 16 September 2011
if the audit report states that recoverable amount will be 70-80%you have to challenge the audit report . that report displays utter non application of mind , proper audit was not done .
there must be some basis for audit report . whether the auditors have worngly excluded cetina bills etc.
you will need some CA to deal with this issue .
after this is done then only he should apply for anticpatory bail as you need some valid grounds
Guest
(Expert) 16 September 2011
Dear Shri Rao,
Payments of any organisation are subject to post-audit and any irregularity found in the process and amount of payment is indicated in the audit report with due reason on account of which the recovery becomes due. So, that reason may not hold good to save yourself from recovery on the plea that the department used to release the payment earlier up to 2010.
Irregularity whenever noticed is got investigated on 100% basis by the organisation by appointing a special team, when the regular audit fails to check the same on routine audit, as only percentage check is prescribed for the audit purposes.
However, about your question about remedy in D's case, the amount should have been specific and not estimated as 70-80% as pointed out in the report. In that case your case seems to be quite sound, as the investigators are not sure whether any irregularity has been committed by D or not and if so to what extent. Unspecific figure has no meaning in accounts. The figure 70 to 80% itself gives you the leverage. You can ask for the copy of the report to defend yourself.
Rest of the advice depends on seeing of the relative documents of NIT, tender document, award letter of contract and agreement, copy of special report about over payment, etc., of the case.
