K’taka: C&AG seeks action against KAS officer over remarks on Gruha Lakshmi audit
Bengaluru: The Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Jahangir Inamdar, has written to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajaneesh seeking disciplinary action against Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS) officer N. Mahesh Babu over alleged vulgar and threatening remarks against the Accountant General (AG) and the Principal Accountant General in connection with audit findings related to the Gruha Lakshmi scheme.
In the letter accessed by IANS, Inamdar sought verification of the remarks attributed to Mahesh Babu, Managing Director of the Karnataka State Women’s Development Corporation, and requested the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under the applicable Conduct Rules and CCA Rules if the allegations are found to be true.
He also sought directions requiring the officer to tender an unconditional public apology to the Accountant General and the Principal Accountant General, Karnataka.
The development comes after the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) reportedly flagged the alleged misuse of around Rs 225 crore under the Gruha Lakshmi scheme, including the transfer of funds to accounts allegedly belonging to deceased and fictitious beneficiaries.
According to the letter, media reports carried remarks attributed to Mahesh Babu in which he allegedly used derogatory and threatening language against the Accountant General and called for him to be physically assaulted.
The letter described the alleged remarks as a matter of “grave concern”.
Inamdar invoked the constitutional position of the C&AG and said the issue was not merely a personal dispute involving two officers.
The C&AG is a constitutional authority under Article 148 of the Constitution. At the same time, the audit of state receipts and expenditure is carried out under Article 149, read with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
C&AG reports are laid before the state legislature under Article 151(2).
The letter stated that an attack on the Accountant General and the Principal Accountant General while they were discharging their official duties amounted to an attack on a constitutional institution and on the legislature’s right to receive information regarding the expenditure of public money.
Inamdar said the alleged remarks would be unacceptable from any citizen and were particularly serious as they were attributed to a serving KAS officer heading the corporation implementing the scheme under audit.
He said such conduct, if established, would violate Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Inamdar added that such a statement had implications for financial propriety and the neutrality of the administration during an election period.
He requested that the matter be examined independently of the alleged abusive remarks.
The letter stressed that the objective of the audit of the Gruha Lakshmi scheme was to ensure that government funds reached the women for whom the scheme was intended.
“The sole objective of the audit of the scheme has been to ensure that the money reaches the women for whom it is meant,” Inamdar said.
He added that this objective could be achieved by facilitating the audit and acting on its findings rather than abusing those reporting them.
He warned that public remarks allegedly targeting a constitutional authority could damage the audit process and undermine the credibility of the state’s institutional mechanisms for ensuring accountability.
Inamdar has therefore urged the Karnataka government to verify the remarks attributed to Mahesh Babu without delay and take appropriate disciplinary action if they are established.
He has also sought an unconditional apology from the officer in the same public domain in which the alleged remarks were made.
Inamdar clarified that the inputs on the Gruha Lakshmi scheme were furnished to the state government in response to a request from the government and were provided through an official D.O. letter.
The letter had specifically stated that the audits had not reached the reporting stage and that the inputs were based on preliminary observations from a partial audit of limited data.
They were therefore not to be treated as final audit conclusions, he said.