The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Wednesday questioned the transparency in spending Rs 36 million sanctioned to Defence Ministry in 1988-90 for construction of low cost houses to rehabilitate widows and orphans of war disabled.
At a meeting presided over by MNA Riaz Fatayana, here on Wednesday, a subcommittee of the PAC directed the ministry to provide by the end of August next the complete details of how the money was spent.
The audit department has alleged that the funds were not spent on the construction of low-cost houses but were drawn at the end of financial year to avoid lapse that violated not only the Constitution but also financial regulations.
The subcommittee quickly responded to the allegations and formed an inter-departmental committee of Finance, Defence and Audit to settle the matter before August this year.
Fatayana observed: "We don't know whether the money was spent on the construction of houses. Whether there are any houses at all. We need all information about the bank cheques issued in this regard."
The audit objection said: "Expenditure of these funds was unchecked and unverified from Statutory Audit. It involves the violation of the constitutional provision".
The subcommittee observed that there was nothing wrong in the construction of low-cost houses for families of those who were martyred or disabled in wars, but the question was why rules were violated in spending of the money.
Despite frequent requests from the Defence Ministry that rules were violated in good faith, the subcommittee had refused to settle the audit para and deferred it.
"Good faith" seems to have become the scapegoat to cover up embezzlements being committed in various departments especially involving those in uniform and still a part of the present government.
The PAC has already let three retired generals off the hook in the $98million Chinese locomotives scam by saying that the deal was struck in "good faith".
The audit observed that in September 1991, it had pointed out the matter. A year later, it got a reply from the Services Headquarters that the cases had been referred to the government for obtaining sanction for retention of unspent funds beyond the financial year concerned.
But the reply was not tenable because the government did not allow retention of unspent amount of one financial year in the next financial year, as it was a violation of the Constitutional provisions.
"The unspent amount had to be surrendered to the government at the close of financial year 1989-90 or 1990-91. But it was not followed," the audit had observed.
The ministry said that although the procedure was violated but money was not embezzled.
"Violation of the procedure was committed because this was the only way to retain money for execution of the job," it said.