Shillong, Feb 26: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has highlighted excess payments made as compensation for job losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Meghalaya.
According to the Social and Economic Sectors and Urban Local Bodies report for the year ending March 31, 2023, there were multiple instances of improper verification of beneficiary data prior to the distribution of incentives.
The audit analysed data files submitted in October 2021, revealing deviations from official government notifications that led to excessive disbursements. These excess payments were identified across all districts of Meghalaya, albeit at varying levels.
The report stated that three kinds of errors in disbursement were noted after analysis – Multiple credits of Rs. 5,000 to the bank accounts of beneficiary having the same registration number, multiple credits of Rs. 5,000 to beneficiaries having the same bank account and multiple credits of Rs. 5,000 each to beneficiaries having the same name.
Further, payments were made twice to the beneficiaries having the same bank account numbers in sixteen cases (32 entries).
These cases pertained to South West Khasi Hills (12 entries), West Garo Hills (2 entries), North Garo Hills (2 entries), South West Garo Hills (8 entries), East Garo Hills (6 Entries) and West Khasi Hills (2 entries) and had a financial implication of Rs. 80,000.
In 469 cases, transfers were found to have been made in the bank account of beneficiaries having the same names. In such cases, Audit noticed the following:
Seven transfers were found to have been made to beneficiaries having the same name in one case.
Six transfers were found to have been made to beneficiaries having the same name in four cases.
Five transfers were found to have been made to beneficiaries having the same name in eight cases.
According to the report four transfers were found to have been made to beneficiaries having the same name in 15 cases, three transfers were found to have been made to beneficiaries having the same name in 60 cases.
Moreover two transfers were found to have been made to beneficiaries having the same name in 381 cases and in certain cases, bank accounts were in the same branches.
