The Berhampur University is marred with serious allegations of corruption, and gross financial irregularities over the last one decade.
According to information available, the local fund audit in its routine audit reports for financial year 2010-2011 and 2011- 2012 and the Test Audit report of AG has pointed out massive bungling of funds.
While these reports are pending for implementation, the university authorities are now in a fix after receipt of the Special Audit report pertaining to procurement of study materials by the Distance Education Center (DEC) of the university.
The audit report pointed out foul play at every stage like issue of tender call notice, receipt of tender papers from bidders, acceptance of incomplete tender documents, constitution of the purchase committee violating the prescribed law, recommendations of purchase committee, no administrative approval by competent authority, submission computer raised bills without valid tin number etc— all pertaining to the process of supply and receipt of study materials worth `1 crore.
The prescribed mandatory rules were compromised, said Odisha High Court advocate Biranchi Narayan Mahapatra. When the audit asked to explain the reasons for the lapses, the authorities failed to provide any satisfactory replies which fuelled the suspicion that such acts of commission and omissions appear to be deliberate.
As per the audit report, the DEC had intended to supply course materials to + 3 students for the first time in the session 2013-14 and the proposal was accepted by DEC Advisory Committee on May 22, 2013 which was approved by the Vice- Chancellor on May 23, 2013 without referring the matter to the Syndicate.
The Syndicate, however, ratified the same later on May 28, 2013. It is not understood why the DEC authorities and Vice-Chancellor were in such haste to get the proposal approved without waiting for its approval in the syndicate, Mahapatra questioned.
According to information available, the Director, DEC, floated a tender notice on June 9, 2013. The last date for receipt of tenders was June 28, 2013. Only three agencies namely, Neeraj Books, Bangalore, Himalaya Publishing House Pvt ltd, Mumbai and Geetanjali Press Pvt ltd, Nagpur had submitted their tender papers.
Surprisingly, all the three outside State agencies had submitted their request letters for tender papers on the same day and significantly none of the request letters bore any letter number and were received by the Director DEC on the same day i.e. on June 18, 2013.
Significantly, all the three agencies had posted their tender documents to the university by speed post at the University Campus Post Office on last date of June 28, 2013. It was further noticed that, the destination of these covers posted at Bhanja Bihar Post office were reportedly from Brahmapur to Bhubaneswar. How all the three firms posted their tender papers at the Berhampur University Post Office on the same date and at same time, Mahapatra questioned.
How the letters reached the Director DEC before the dead line of 2.30 pm on the same date when their destination was from Brahmapur to BhubaneswarIJ The audit team, therefore, in their report pointed out several such lapses in the tender papers of the agencies.
Only Himalaya Publishing House Pvt ltd had submitted the required EMD money but had neither signed in the terms and conditions paper nor provided the Sales Tax clearance certificate which is a mandatory requirement. The other two firms did not deposit the prescribed EMD money and surprisingly submitted the photo copies of the tender papers supplied to other agencies.
Significantly, the incomplete tender paper of Himalaya Publishing House Private limited was accepted by the purchase committee rejecting the other two agencies. The mystery behind accepting a single quotation rate of Himalaya Publishing House with two important lapses suggests the possible unholy nexus between the university authority and the supplying agency. The audit further noticed that the purchase committee was not properly constituted as there was no representative from the Syndicate.
The audit report questioning the bills raised for payment observed that there were no way-bills relating to supply of materials. Materials were supplied and received without way-bill and quality review of materials supplied by the relevant subject experts.
Computerized bills raised and submitted for payment did not have any TIN numbers. In this context, how the bills were accepted to effect payment, the audit pointed questioned.
Recording lapses of serious nature and foul play starting from the initiation of the proposal of providing study materials to the students, the report observed gross irregularities in tender process, single quotation on a bulk purchase worth of `1 crore , irregularity in supply and receipt, bills raised for payment and finally the firms offer to give extra concession of 7 per cent etc.
The audit team recommended that further investigation by personal interrogation of the authorized representatives of those agencies, concerned staff of the university and post office authority be made to ascertain the truth behind the matter. The university Syndicate has accepted the report unanimously in March this year and later sought the clearance from the Chancellor who had cleared it in May last. But action is not yet initiated which proves the procrastination approach of the university on the issue.