E-Paper
Audit sees financial irregularities at DAVV
A SUM of Rs 2.5 crore is missing from the central account of the four-star Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya (DAVV) and no cashbook was maintained from January 2004 till date of audit at self-financing Institute of Management Studies (IMS) as per the audit report filed on March 31, 2005.
A SUM of Rs 2.5 crore is missing from the central account of the four-star Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya (DAVV) and no cashbook was maintained from January 2004 till date of audit at self-financing Institute of Management Studies (IMS) as per the audit report filed on March 31, 2005.
DAVV Registrar Parikshit Singh has notified the glaring discrepancies pointed out as audit objections in a letter written to the Vice Chancellor and Executive Committee (EC) members recently.
As per the audit report of 2004-05, a loss of Rs 44,97,641 was shown under different heads, while the report for 2005-06 was still awaited.
The auditor also found that the University had not prepared a bank reconciliation statement for the past several years in the absence of which tallying the books of accounts with those of the funds was difficult.
Taking serious objection to this irregularity, the auditor asked for its immediate rectification, which has not been complied with.
According to Parikshit Singh’s letter to the V-C, the auditor found that the cash book balance of the central account showed Rs 88,729,484 while the balance of the bank passbook showed Rs 64,656,426 resulting in an unaccounted discrepancy of between the cashbook and pass book to the tune of Rs 2,40,73,058.
The lacuna has led to speculation of various possibilities including that of unaccounted loss. The audit report also notes that no cash book had been maintained from January 1, 2004 till the review held on March 31, 2005, in the self-financing institute IMS and its subordinate department of Distance Education, E-Commerce.
In the absence of a cash book/register, tabulation of its sub departments could not be completed, bank loan could not be examined and the difference between bank balance and cashbook balance could not be ascertained.
This fact was stated in letter number 268 issued on March 15, 2005, and stressed upon again in letter number 296 issued on March 29, 2005. Singh, who had pointed out the discrepancies in financial management just after assuming charge on the post vacant from a long time, had found himself in the bad books of V-C C S Chaddha. The battle over control of finances raging between the two had assumed mammoth proportions necessitating the calling of an exigency EC meeting.
Singh, on being informed of the irregularities, pointed out in his letter that cashbook was an important document on the basis of which balance sheet is prepared and in its absence control over accounts becomes difficult. He did not rule out the possibility of a serious financial discrepancy for which the university would be responsible.
He pointed out that conducting business without maintaining books of accounts was akin to inviting financial fraud/forgery and the possibility of this increased, as the remaining 35 different accounts maintained by the departments were also unchecked.
