ECP accounts: Auditor general points out irregularities worth Rs120m

Says indelible ink worth Rs5 million was left to waste and Rs1.8 million were spent to buy an unapproved new car.


Web Desk August 25, 2013
Election Commission of Pakistan. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP) has pointed financial irregularities worth around Rs120 million in the accounts of the Election Commission Pakistan (ECP), Express News reported on Sunday. 

According to the AGP, the commission had got all election-related printing done from only one printer named Pakistan Post Printing Foundation (PPPF) without opening a tender for public bidding. The ECP had spent Rs49.2 million on printing from the PPPF.

The AGP further mentioned that around Rs68.1 million were spent on printing from an unrelated accounting head and that this amount was never adjusted in the financial statement.

As per AGP's audit, indelible ink worth Rs5 million was left to waste and Rs1.8 million were spent to buy a new car which was not approved by the relevant authorities.

Stating that the ECP failed to clarify these irregularities, the AGP said people involved in this act should be held responsible.

COMMENTS (5)

ashar | 11 years ago | Reply

The office of the AGPR is itself not worthy of confidence since the yearly audit causes certain amount to spent for every government office to avoid audit paras. This is absolutely a futile exercise unless and until merit is observed at the time of induction to the government department which is no where for the last many years.

B A Malik | 11 years ago | Reply There is corruption in every nook and corner. This is the lasting legacy of former government.How can MNS deal with this menace when his think tanks are enjoying a sound sleep? Corruption is not less dangerous than terrorism .Prepare for winter dear ,folks. Everey body is lining his pockets and making hay while the sin shines.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ