DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

CAG: Transport Dept charged for service it never provided

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Vishav Bharti

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 16

Advertisement

While issuing driver’s licence, the Transport Department fleeced more than 50,000 persons in four years. The department charged fee for providing medical certificates to applicants which it never did. The irregularity was pointed out in the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report for 2014-15.

It said the department charged lakhs of rupees as medical certificate fee, but did not provide it even to a single applicant.

Advertisement

On August 1, 2011, the department authorised the Punjab State Transport Society (PSTS) to levy user charges of Rs80 per learner licence. “The charges included fee for issuing a medical certificate to the applicant of a learner’s licence,” the report said. But the government did not authorise any doctor to conduct medical tests.

While going through the records of six district transport officers and STC office from 2011-14, CAG found that the PSTS collected Rs40.37 lakh as user charges from 50,462 applicants of learner’s licence.

Full payment, no courier

The government paid Rs1.45 crore as courier charges to a firm, BOOT Operator, even as no courier was ever delivered. The firm was to deliver smart card-based driving licences, registration copies, permits and other documents to the applicants. It generated 14.50 lakh DLs/RCs during 2011-14, but not a single document was ever delivered by courier.

No penalty for delay

As per the contract all RCs and DLs are to be printed within a day from the date of receipt of application at front-end counter. CAG noticed that during 2011-14, BOOT Operator printed 4.30 lakh RCs and 3.14 lakh DLs with a delay ranging between one and more than four days. A penalty of Rs3.22 crore should have been imposed on the contractor, but it was not done.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts