Compliance Audit Report on the accounts of the State Project Director, Rashtriya Uchchatar

Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) for the period from 04/2013 to 11/2018

Part-I

(A) INTRODUCTION

Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), launched in 2013 aims at
providing strategic funding to eligible state higher educational institutions. The central funding (in the ratio of
60:40 for general category States, 90:10 for special category states (HP state includes in Special Category) and
100% for union territories) would be norm based and outcome dependent. The funding would flow from the
central ministry through the state governments/union territories to the State Higher Education Councils before
reaching the identified institutions. The funding to states would be made on the basis of critical appraisal of
State Higher Education Plans, which would describe each state’s strategy to address issues of equity, access
and excellence in higher education.

Objectives

 Improve the overall quality of state institutions by ensuring conformity to prescribed norms and
standards and adopt accreditation as a mandatory quality assurance framework.
 Usher transformative reforms in the state higher education system by creating a facilitating
institutional structure for planning and monitoring at the state level, promoting autonomy in State
Universities and improving governance in institutions.
 Ensure reforms in the affiliation, academic and examination systems.
 Ensure adequate availability of quality faculty in all higher educational institutions and ensure
capacity building at all levels of employment.
 Create an enabling atmosphere in the higher educational institutions to devote themselves to
research and innovations.
 Expand the institutional base by creating additional capacity in existing institutions and establishing
new institutions, in order to achieve enrolment targets.
 Correct regional imbalances in access to higher education by setting up institutions in unserved &
underserved areas.
 Improve equity in higher education by providing adequate opportunities of higher education to
SC/STs and socially and educationally backward classes; promote inclusion of women, minorities, and
differently abled persons.

Officers' in charge

The charge of the office during the period covered under audit was held by following officers:

Name & Designation Period from Period To

01/04/2013 31/03/2015
Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sekhri, State Project Director
01/04/2015 04/05/2015
Smt.Manjusha Pathania, DDO RUSA
05/05/2015 02/01/2017
Dr. Amar dev, State Project Director
03/01/2017 28/02/2017
Sh. Satish Sharma, DDO RUSA
01/03/2017 30/04/2017
Sh. Ashok Kumar Dhiman, Superintendent cum DDO RUSA
01/05/2017 31/07/2017
Dr. Uma Verma, DDO RUSA
01/08/2017 30/11/2017
Sh. Krishan Vaidya, DDO RUSA
01/12/2017 09/01/2018
Dr. Uma Verma, DDO RUSA
 10/01/2018 31/01/2018
Sh. Krishan Vaidya, State Project Director
01/02/2018 11/03/2018
Dr. Uma Verma, DDO RUSA
12/03/2018 30/06/2018
Dr. Uma Verma, State Project Director
01/07/2018 till date
Sh.Amarjeet K.Sharma Director – cum- SPD RUSA

(B) Overall hierarchy of the department

RUSA scheme is steered in each State/UT through State Higher Education Councils (SHEC). The SHECs are
supported in turn by the Project Directorate (created by the State Government) and State Technical Support
Groups (TSG). These bodies are responsible for management, coordination, implementation and monitoring of
the project at the State/UT levels. The formation of SHEC forms the primary block towards building a sound
planning and funding mechanism for higher education at State level. Given the number of State universities
and the large number of students they cater to, States are the unit of planning for higher education under
RUSA and it is necessary to create SHEC as a body that is at an arm’s length from the State as well as centre,
which synergizes their resources and fulfils these functions of planning, monitoring, quality control and co-
ordination at the State level.

State Project Directorate (SPD)

The State Project Directorate (SPD) consists of a State Project Director and such adequate support staff as may
be required for the effective functioning of the State Project Directorate. The State Project Director must be a
senior officer of the rank of Commissioner/Secretary of State Government.

Functions of SPD

 Oversee project implementation at the State level.

 Maintain statistical data and MIS reports.
 Engage project auditors as required.

(C) Scope of audit and focus areas

The compliance audit aims to examine the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the RUSA
schemes being implemented. The audit will examined whether efficient planning for the
implementation of various programme exist in the Department, whether requirement of funds are
adequately determined for implementation of the programme, whether adequate monitoring and
internal control mechanism and internal audit system existed in the department?

(D) Audit Objectives

The Compliance Audit will be carried out with the objectives to ascertain whether:

 Planning process at State level as well as at District and Tehsil level was effective and
adequate.
 Financial management was adequate and effective.
 Sanctions were accorded by competent authority in accordance with relevant rules and
instructions.
 Implementation of programmes/schemes was effective and efficient.
 Manpower was in accordance with the provision of rules and regulations.
 Training to staff under capacity building was imparted.
 Monitoring and internal control was effective and efficient.
(E) Party Composition and period of audit

The present inspection which includes a general examination and test check on the
accounts of the State Project Director RUSA, H.P. Shimla for the period from 04/2013 to 11/2018
was conducted by an audit party comprising of Sh. K.C. Dhulia, Sr. Audit Officer, Sh. Rajat Prajapati,
Asstt. Audit Officer, Sh. Kritajnamay Biswas, Asstt. Audit Officer with effect from 02.01.2011 to
09.01.2019. and Sh. Puneet Kumar, Sr. Auditor with effect from 07.01.2011 to 09.01.2019.

(F) Audit Criteria

The audit criteria used for benchmarking the audit findings will be as under:

 Government notifications, instructions issued by the GOI/State Government from time to

time for implementation of Schemes
 Departmental Manual/Policies/Rules and regulation;
 State Financial Rules;
 Budget/Subsidiary Treasury Rules; and
 Procedures prescribed for monitoring and evaluation of scheme/ programmes.

(G) Budget and financial performance

The RUSA Grant received and expenditure of the last three years of the office of State
Project Director RUSA, H.P. Shimla was as under:

Amount in Rs.

Year RUSA Grant Expenditure

2016-17 560000000 841206011

2017-18 454271222 563632381

2018-19 (up to 11/18) 81850000 286386919

Figures supplied by the Department

(H) Sampling procedure

As per order of Headquarter, one month was selected for detailed test audit per year
of pending audit period, subject to a maximum of three months corresponding to the most recent
three financial years for which audit is pending. The audit of the office of the State Project Director
RUSA, H.P. Shimla is being conducted for the first time. Three months have been selected for
detailed check because the expenditure incurred in these months was on higher side as comparison
to other months.

Month Expenditure
(in Rs.)
08/2016 19,06,36,449
08/2017 55,08,07,937
11/2018 12,31,15,357

(I) Sources of criteria adopted to evaluate the selected subject matter

The subject matter evaluated on the basis of financial powers delegated to the
department, Budget Manual of HP, orders/notifications issued by the government of Himachal
Pradesh from time to time, HP Financial Rules, TA rules, Medical Attendant Rules, guidelines of
central sponsored schemes issued by the GOI, etc.

The inspection report has been prepared on the basis of information supplied and
records made available by the auditee. The Principal Accountant General (Audit), H.P., Shimla
disclaims any responsibility for misinformation and non-supply of information/ records by the
auditee. The results of the current audit have been incorporated in the succeeding paragraphs.

Note: the audit has been conducted in accordance with the Auditing Standards of CAG.

Part : II: Current Audit: Audit findings of the current audit are embodied in the succeeding
paragraphs

Part II (A) : Significant Audit Findings

----Nil-----
Part II B : Other Audit Findings

PARA 1: Irregular release of grants to the Institutions under RUSA Rs.3350.00 Lakh.

As per CH-1 of RUSA guidelines, the objective for the RUSA is to improve the overall quality of
existing state institutions by ensuring that all institutions conform to prescribed norms and
standards and adopt accreditation as a mandatory quality assurance framework. This objective is a
precondition for sanction of funds under all the components of RUSA. The RUSA guidelines further
provide under CH-4 that affiliation reform and accreditation norms as elaborated in the RUSA
documents should be followed by states. Accreditations shall be a prerequisite for all the existing
institutions which are more than six years old.

During test check of the records of the State Project Director RUSA and information supplied by the
department, it was noticed that infrastructure grant of Rs.3300.00 Lakh to 20 institutions and equity
initiative grant of Rs. 50.00 Lakh to 11 institutions (Total grants Rs.3350.00 Lakh) under RUSA as
detailed in Annexure A had been released. It was further noticed that all these institutions were
more than six year old but these had not got NAAC accreditation as of 11/2018. Some of the
institutions are more than 10 years old. Thus, the grant under RUSA of Rs.3350.00 Lakh to these
institutions without NAAC accreditation was irregular.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 22 dated 09-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that in the initial years of
RUSA implementation (i.e. RUSA 1.0), the Project Approval Board of MHRD, Govt. of India has
sanctioned RUSA Grants in respect of specific institutions i.e. by name of Higher Educational
Institutes concerned and the State Project Directorate has accordingly transferred the RUSA Grants
to the Institutions concerned i.e. for whom the funds were specifically sanctioned by the MHRD, GoI,
New Delhi. However under RUSA 2.0, RUSA Grants are being approved/sanctioned/released only in
respect of institutions accredited by NAAC, by GoI itself. In view if this position, there is no irregular
release of RUSA Grants as pointed out vide the Audit Memo ibid. The reply of the department is not
acceptable in audit because NAAC accreditation of the institution under RUSA was prerequisite for
obtaining the grants.

Recommendation: The Institutions maybe directed to get NAAC accreditation without further delay.
PARA 2: Non-utilisation of Preparatory Grant Rs.1.95 crore.

As per the RUSA guidelines on Preparatory Grants (under institutional restructuring, capacity
building and reform) a preparatory amount is provided to the state govt. to enable them to create/
strengthen necessary institutional framework for complying with the a-priori requirements and
commitments under RUSA. These funds can be utilised for setting up/ strengthening the SHECs,
State Project Directorate and State Resource Centre; and undertake baseline surveys to help them in
capacity building.

The GOI and the State govt. released Rs.4.00 crore (Centre: Rs.3.6 crore in February 2018 and State:
Rs.0.4 crore in March 2018) as first instalment for preparatory activities under RUSA in the state.
These funds were to be utilised within 12 months of the closure of the financial year on capacity
building, planning etc. including setting up/ strengthening the SHECs, State Project Directorate and
State Resource Centre; and undertake baseline surveys.

Test check of records of the H.P. State Project Director RUSA revealed that the department had
utilised the preparatory grant of Rs.2.05 crore for organising workshops, NAAC accreditation fees,
purchase of hardware computer etc. and balance Rs.1.95 crore was lying unutilised as of 11/2018.
The department failed to utilise the grant within the stipulated period. Consequently, the GOI did
not release subsequent instalment of preparatory grant.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 19 dated 09-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that the Preparatory Grant
of Rs.4.0 crore is being utilised by the State Project Directorate NHEM/RUSA for the purpose for
which it has been meant. And the same is being utilised as per requirements/needs and in
consonance with the RUSA Guidelines issued for its utilisation. It was further stated that due to
some paucity of accommodation its utilisation has also been hindered and the Department is in
pursuit of providing adequate accommodation for the State Project Directorate NHEM/RUSA which
will also facilitate utilisation of more funds from the Preparatory Grants as the Directorate RUSA also
proposed to set up a Computer Laboratory for training of Department of Higher Education officials.

Recommendation: The unutilised preparatory RUSA grant maybe utilised without further delay.
PARA 3: Excess payment of hire charges of taxi Rs.0.37 Lakh.

The State Project Director RUSA had made an agreement with Sh. Ajay Singh Salwani R/o
Flat no.506, Basant Vihar, Near Kasumpati, Shimla on 22-07-2015 for providing taxi of
different categories on hire basis for the RUSA. As per the rate approved first 100 KM were
to be charges at higher rates and above 100 KM at lower rates.

During test check of records of the HP State Project Director RUSA, it was noticed that the
contractor had submitted the claims, had distance covered in journey undertaken for higher
no. actual distance covered in local journey were not given in the bill and the same were
claimed on estimated basis. The distances claimed to be covered in the journey were not
attested by the govt. servant who performed the journeys. It was further noticed in the
audit that higher rate on first 100 KM had been claimed on daily basis along with halt
charges, even the taxi was hired for more than 1 day which was not correct. Higher rate
should have been claimed/paid for first hundred KM of the complete journey and not on
daily basis. Thus, due to claiming excess KMs travelled and wrong applications of rate, the
payments aggregating Rs.37126/- had been made to the contractor as detailed in Annexure
B.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 21 dated 09-01-2019 the Jt. Director submitted that the facts
and figures will be verified and the observation raised will be adhered to. He also stated that
in case over payment is confirmed/found as correct, the excess payment will be
recovered/adjusted in future payments.

Recommendation: Needful maybe done under intimation to audit.

PARA 4(a): Non-deduction of Income Tax at Source (TDS) Rs. 0.21 Lakh.

Section 194C of the IT act 1961 provides that while making/crediting the
payments to the contractor exceeding Rs. 30000/-, there shall be deducted income
tax at source from the payments at the rate of 1% in the case of resident
individual/HUF and at the rate of 2% in the case of other persons and deposited into
Central Govt. A/c.

During the test check of records, it was noticed that the State Project Director
RUSA had made payments aggregating Rs.1072571/- to the Director, National
Institute of Electronics & Information Technology, Shimla (PAN AAATD0315M)
during the period 04/2015 to 11/2018 on account of hiring the services of Employees
on Outsource Basis for RUSA work (2015-16: Rs.214275; 2016-17: Rs.199749; 2017-
18: Rs.395070; and 2018-19: Rs.263477) as detailed in the Annexure C.

As the payments in each Financial year were made to the above contractor
society exceeding Rs. 30000/-, the income tax at the rate of 2% was required to be
deducted from the payment which worked out to Rs. 21452/-and deposited into the
account of the central government. However, the same was not deducted at source.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 13 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director confirmed the facts
and figures and stated that the audit observation has been noted and will be taken
care of while making such payments in future.
PARA 4(b): Non-deduction of Income Tax at Source (TDS) Rs.0.03 Lakh.

Section 194C of the IT act 1961 provides that while making/crediting the payments to the
contractor exceeding Rs. 30000/-, there shall be deducted income tax at source from the payments
at the rate of 1% in the case of resident individual/HUF and at the rate of 2% in the case of other
persons and deposited into Central Govt. A/c.

During the test check of records of the State Project Director RUSA it was noticed that the
department had entered into an agreement with Ajay Singh Salwani, R/o Flat no. 506, Basant Vihar,
Near Kusumpati, Shimla for providing taxi on hire. It was further noticed that the following payments
were made to the contractor for hiring the taxi services.

S.No. Payment Vr. No. Date Amount of Payment

1 3/2016 05.04.2016 31761

2 122 14.08.2017 99530
3 8/2018 07.06.2018 44140
4 10/2018 144485
Total 319916

As the payments in each Financial year were made to the above contractor exceeding Rs.
30000/-, the income tax at the rate of 1% was required to be deducted from the payment which
worked out to Rs. 3200/-and deposited into the account of the central government. However, the
same was not deducted at source.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 14 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director confirmed the facts and figures and
stated that the audit observation has been noted and will be taken care of while making such
payments in future.
PARA 5(a): Excess payment of Travelling Allowance Rs.0.06 Lakh.

As per Rule-134 of the Supplementary Rules, a Government servant is not entitled to

any travelling allowance for a journey made during leave or while proceeding on or
returning from leave.

During test check of the records of the H.P. State Project Director, RUSA it was
noticed that the T.A. bill of Rs.32,431/- had been drawn vide Payment Vr. No.
56/2016 dt 20.08.2016.

Perusal of the TA bills it was noticed that Dr. B.L. Vinta, Joint Director was on tour
from Shimla to Mumbai to attend the meeting on B.Voc Course on 07.06.2016. He
should have taken transit for the backward journey from Mumbai to Shimla on
08.06.2016. But he proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 08.06.2016 to 11.06.2016 and
took transit from Mumbai to Shimla on 12.06.2016 and claimed airfare from Mumbai
to Chandigarh Rs.5352/- and daily allowance of Rs.500 (Total Rs.5852) for the
journey undertaken on the day. As the Government Officer proceeded on leave, the
travelling allowance (fare and daily allowance) of Rs.5852 was not reimbursable to
him.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 11 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that the facts
and figures will be confirmed and necessary action with regard to recovering the
amount of excess payment will be taken on priority basis and will be deposited in
Govt. treasury at the earliest.

Recommendation: Needful maybe done under intimation to audit.

PARA 5(b): Excess payment of Travelling Allowance Rs.0.01 Lakh.

As per Rule-134 of the Supplementary Rules, a Government servant is not entitled to any
travelling allowance for a journey made during leave or while proceeding on or returning
from leave.

During test check of the records of the H.P. State Project Director, RUSA it was noticed that
the T.A. bill of Rs.32,431/- had been drawn vide Payment Vr. No. 56/2016 dt 20.08.2016.

Perusal of the TA bills it was noticed that Dr. J.S. Negi, Principal Govt. Degree College,
Sanjauli was on tour from Shimla to New Delhi to attend the meeting on 12.01.2016 on
B.Voc Course. He should have taken transit for the backward journey from New Delhi to
Shimla on 13.01.2016. But he proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 13.01.2016 to 17.01.2016
and took transit from New Delhi to Shimla on 18.01.2016 and claimed Volvo fare of Rs.840/-
and daily allowance of Rs.120 (Total Rs.960) for the journey undertaken on the day. As the
Government Officer proceeded on leave, the travelling allowance (fare and daily allowance)
of Rs.960 was not reimbursable to him.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 12 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that the facts and
figures will be confirmed and necessary action with regard to recovering the amount of
excess payment will be taken on priority basis and will be deposited in Govt. treasury at the
earliest.

Recommendation: Needful maybe done under intimation to audit.

PARA 5(c): Excess payment of Travelling Allowance Rs.0.01 Lakh.

As per TA Rules the journey performed by road, by bus other than ordinary bus the
reimbursement of the fare shall be made on production of bus fare tickets.

During test check of the records of the H.P. State Project Director, RUSA it was noticed that
the T.A. bill of Rs.19899/- had been drawn vide Payment Vr. No. 37 dt 16.11.2018.

Perusal of the TA bills it was noticed that Sh. Anil Thakur, Associate Professor, Govt. Degree
College, Mandi to Delhi and back with effect from 12.05.2018 to 14.05.2018 and he had
claimed Volvo fare of Rs.1170/- from Mandi to Delhi on 12.05.2018 and Rs.1170/- from
Delhi to Mandi on 14.05.2018 but he had not submitted the tickets for journeys undertaken
by Volvo bus. Therefore, he was entitled for reimbursement of bus fare by ordinary bus. The
distance between Mandi and Delhi is 430 km and thus the total journey undertaken during
tour from Mandi to Delhi and back was 860 km and the total fare by ordinary bus works out
to Rs.960/-( Mandi to Kiratpur: 114km x Rs.1.44; Kiratpur to Delhi: 316 x Re.1) which was
reimbursable to the govt. servant against actually reimbursed at Rs.2340/-. Thus, the
reimbursement of TA claim had been made excess by Rs.1380/- (2340-960)

In reply to Audit Memo no. 17 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that the facts and
figures will be confirmed and necessary action with regard to recovering the amount of
excess payment will be taken on priority basis and will be deposited in Govt. treasury at the
earliest.

Recommendation: Needful maybe done under intimation to audit.

PARA 5(d): Excess payment of Travelling Allowance Rs.0.01 Lakh.

As per TA Rules the journey performed by road, by bus other than ordinary bus the
reimbursement of the fare shall be made on production of bus fare tickets.

During test check of the records of the H.P. State Project Director, RUSA it was noticed that
the T.A. bill of Rs.2618/- had been drawn vide Payment Vr. No. 39 dt 30.11.2018.

Perusal of the TA bills it was noticed that Sh. Amarjeet K. Sharma, (Jt. Director cum D.D.O.
RUSA) was on tour from Shimla to Delhi and back with effect from 13.05.2018 to 15.05.2018
and he had claimed Volvo fare of Rs.589/- from Chandigarh to Delhi on 13.05.2018 and
Rs.589/- from Delhi to Chandigarh on 15.05.2018 but he had not submitted the tickets for
journeys undertaken by Volvo bus. Therefore, he was entitled for reimbursement of bus
fare by ordinary bus. The distance between Chandigarh and Delhi is 250 km and thus the
total journey undertaken during tour from Chandigarh to Delhi and back was 500 km and
the total fare by ordinary bus at the rate of Rs.1 per km works out to Rs.500/- which was
reimbursable to the govt. servant against actually reimbursed at Rs.1178/-. Thus, the
reimbursement of TA claim had been made excess by Rs.678/- (1178-500)

In reply to Audit Memo no. 18 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that the facts and
figures will be confirmed and necessary action with regard to recovering the amount of
excess payment will be taken on priority basis and will be deposited in Govt. treasury at the
earliest.

Recommendation: Needful maybe done under intimation to audit.

PARA 6: Non-conducting annual physical verification of store/stock.

As per H.P. Financial Rules Vol. I, all the store/stock purchased or acquired
shall be inspected, weighed and accounted for in the stock register. The rules further
provide that the Head of office shall physically verify the items of store/stock at least
once in a year and record a certificate to this effect in the store/stock register.

During test check of records of the State Project Director, RUSA, H.P. Shimla, it was
noticed that the annual physical verification of store/stock had not been conducted
by the head of the department during the period 04/2013 to 11/2018.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 16 dated 08-01-2019 the Jt. Director stated that
requirement of physical verification of store and stock as pointed out has been
consciously noted and will be taken care of in future and the stock verification will be
conducted annually every financial year.

Recommendation: Needful maybe done and compliance may be shown at the time
of next audit.
PARA 7: Non-reconciliation of figures of Expenditure with the Bank.

Rule 37 (5) of HPFR provides that

As per HPFR Vol. 1, the Head of the Department shall be responsible for the monthly
reconciliation of the figures given in the accounts maintained by him with those appearing in the
books of the Accountant General/Bank. The procedure for reconciliation shall be as follows: -

During test check of the records of H.P. State Project Director RUSA, it was noticed that the State
Project Director RUSA had maintained a Saving Bank Account No. 1964101007190 with Canara Bank
for receipt and payment of RUSA Grant/Expenditure. It was further noticed that the figures of
receipt/expenditure of RUSA grants had not been reconciled with the bank and necessary monthly
reconciliation statements recorded in the cashbook during the period 04/2013 to 11/2018.

In reply to Audit Memo no. 15 dated 08-01-2019 stated that the RUSA grants are sanctioned and
drawn by the Directorate/Department of Higher Education and after that deposited in saving bank
A/c No. 1964101007190. As the funds are drawn by the Department reconciliation of figure with the
Accountant General is done by the Directorate/Department of Higher Education. As regards
reconciliation with the bank, the same is being done by the State Project Directorate RUSA and
certificate to this effect is used to be recorded in the cash book regularly. The reply is not acceptable
in audit because no reconciliation statement was drawn and recorded in the cashbook.

Recommendation: Reconciliation of the cash as per cashbook with the cash as per bank may
invariably be made and the reconciliation statement be recorded in the cashbook in future and
compliance be shown at the time of next audit.
Part-III

Follow up on findings outstanding from previous reports

This was the FIRST AUDIT of the unit. Hence, there was no old outstanding paras of the IRs.

Part-IV Best practices

No comment, as it is the duty of the staff to do the official work and maintain records
as per rules/instructions issued by the Government.

Part-V Acknowledgement
All the dealing Assistants of different branches had made available records to audit
for checking.

Seen, discussed and facts verified

Jt.Director
RUSA Sr. Audit Officer
H.P. Shimla Camp at Shimla