AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 497

11
Audit of Scientific Departments

The suggestion1 for creating a separate audit office for the Scientific
Departments had come from the Science Advisory Committee to
the Cabinet who recommended a unified audit set up for audit of
all scientific departments/ bodies/ authorities. This was agreed
to by the Government of India when Department of Science and
Technology OM of 28 December 1983 stated that C&AG of India
had been requested that audit of all Science and Technology
Agencies and Departments be brought under one single agency
under the C&AG of India. The reasons for this were apparent.
Normal audit norms will not work for science audit and, therefore,
approach of audit would need to be different. C&AG T.N.
Chaturvedi agreed to the suggestion and intimated Ministry of
Finance in March 1986 the decision to create a separate office for
Science and Technology Audit w.e.f. 1 April 1986, styled as the
office of the Director of Audit, Commerce, Works and
Miscellaneous-II. This was set up as a unified organization for
science audit with the responsibility for the audit of the Scientific
Departments/ Autonomous Organizations/ Institutions/
Laboratories, etc. of the Government of India. The office was
created by restructuring of the office of the existing Director of
Audit, Commerce, Works and Miscellaneous. The designation of
the office was changed in 1989 as office of the Director of Audit
(Scientific Departments), New Delhi and in the following year to
office of the Principal Director of Audit (Scientific Departments).
This office was declared as Nodal Office for Environment Audit
in December 2002. The 2002 edition of C&AG’s MSO (Audit)
contained for the first time a Chapter on Audit of Scientific
Departments. The office has brought out a separate Manual of
Scientific Departments in 2007.
498 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

This office conducts the audit of Scientific Departments covering

four Central Ministries and three Departments and is the sole
auditor of nine autonomous bodies under the Scientific
Departments. The Audit Reports of these autonomous bodies are
prepared under section 19(2) and 20(1) of the C&AG’s (DPC) Act,
1971. The office is responsible for preparation of the report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Union Government
(Scientific Departments). The office of the Pr. Director of Audit
(Scientific Departments) is functioning from Delhi with three branch
offices headed by Dy. Directors/ Directors, for the audit of
Department of Atomic Energy at Mumbai, Department of Space at
Bangalore and Kolkata.
The Ministries/ Departments and major autonomous bodies
under the audit control of Pr. Director of Audit (Scientific
Departments) are given below:
(i) Ministry of Science and Technology, including Department
of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research and Department of Biotechnology.
(ii) Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.
(iii) Ministry of Earth Sciences including India Meteorological
Department.
(iv) Ministry of Environment and Forests.
(v) Department of Atomic Energy.
(vi) Department of Space.
(vii) Department of Information Technology.
(viii) Indian Council of Agricultural Research and its
laboratories.
(ix) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and its
laboratories.
Besides undertaking audit of these Ministries/ Departments/
Autonomous Bodies dealing with Science & Technology, this office
deals with more than 500 units functioning under these Ministries
that includes some of the most prestigious and prominent scientific
institutions of the country.
Some of the important developments during the period 1990
onwards concerning Science and Technology audit are given below.
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 499

AUDIT APPROACH—THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES

To stress the special approach and emphasis that Audit should
adopt in the case of Scientific Departments, C&AG has laid down
the following guiding principles for Scientific Audit2.
(i) Audit should not be perceived as an agency oriented
towards finding fault, but as a mission directed towards
pointing out system deficiencies with a view to assisting
the scientific community.
(ii) The role of audit should be complementary to the efforts
of the Executive and aim at improving managerial
practices in scientific administration.
(iii) Audit should recognize the uncertainties involved in
scientific research. Therefore, while evaluating systems
of planning, programming, funding, monitoring or
execution of a scientific or research project, audit should
endeavour to segregate what is foreseeable from what
cannot be anticipated. This, of course, does not reduce
the significance of data availability on time and cost
overruns in overall planning, establishment of priorities
and resources allocation for audit comments.
(iv) In auditing the functioning of scientific departments, the
effort should be to evaluate the projects and programmes
with reference to known parameters and a priori
assumptions made by the departments, such as the
Departments of Space and Atomic Energy.
(v) In judging performance, audit should further be guided
by the performance parameters prescribed by the
organization itself, in case these have not been prescribed,
audit will be well within its rights to point out the omission.
It is also the function of audit to examine whether proper
monitoring machinery is available for securing the timely
and cost-effective fulfillment of the objectives envisaged.
(vi) While evaluating scientific departments, the approach
adopted by various Committees such as the Abid Hussain
Committee on the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research and the Rao Committee on the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research and their recommendations
should be gone into and kept in view. Audit can also play
a role in ascertaining the extent to which implementation
of these recommendations had progressed.
500 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

(vii) Scientific research is of two kinds, basic research aimed

at expanding the frontiers of human knowledge and
applied research for bringing the fruits of such knowledge
to the service of mankind. It will be necessary for audit
to be very careful and discreet in commenting on areas of
basic research, particularly when its comprehension and
knowledge of basic scientific research is inadequate.
Nevertheless, it has an important role to play in examining
the programmes and projects of applied research in the
context of economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the
utilization of resources.
(viii) Similarly, different criteria will need to be applied and
higher levels of personnel deployed for the audit of highly
sensitive organizations such as the Departments of Atomic
Energy and Space compared to other scientific and
research organizations. This distinction is of paramount
importance.
(ix) Audit should examine whether there is an effective linkage
between applied research and the user industries. The
fruits of knowledge generated by the scientists should be
available to the industry and society in full measure.
(x) Having due regard to the complexities involved in the
audit of scientific endeavour and the maturity required,
specialized training programmes have to be organized
periodically for personnel engaged in the audit of
scientific departments.
Risk based approach to audit is prominent in Science Audit.
The risk based approach is adopted for both audit planning as
well as selection of units for audit. The office has recently drawn
up a strategic Plan. Complete profile of auditable entities is
maintained in an electronic data base. This data base also helps
the office in deciding upon the periodicity and time frame for audit
of concerned units for Performance Audit as well as Transaction
Audit on the basis of risk perception. The rule of the thumb is that
high risk units with high expenditure are chosen for carrying out
Performance audits and for Transaction audit, units having high
risk even with low expenditure are selected.
About 50 per cent of the auditee units of the Principal Director
of Audit, Scientific Audit are small units, with expenditure less
than Rs. 20 crore. From transaction audit view point these are not
significant units—they have poor potential for transaction audit
paras.
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 501

The Audit approach is shaped by these two considerations

described above and hence a dominant role for Performance Audit
in the Science Audit.
While Performance Auditing guidelines of 2004 are applicable
to science and technology (S&T) audit also, Principal Director of
Audit, Scientific Departments has prescribed certain criteria that
are specific to Scientific Departments, for application in the
performance evaluation (audit) of these entities. These are:
(i) project success in terms of achievement of objectives set out by
the organizations themselves, (ii) transfer and commercialization
of technology developed, (iii) patents obtained, (iv) publication of
papers alongwith impact factor of these papers, and (v) finally
internal revenue generation from research on sponsored projects
etc.
The office uses the statistical sampling techniques for selection
of samples in Performance Audits. In their recently conducted
Performance Audits, the office used random sampling, stratified
sampling and other sampling techniques for Performance Audit
on ‘Management of Wastes in India’ as well as ‘Working of Krishi
Vikas Kendras’.

AUDIT REPORTS
Audit Reports brought out by Principal Director of Audit, Scientific
Departments have one distinguishing feature. There is a
preponderance of value for money or performance audit paras
mostly long reviews. This is just as it should be because in the
audit of Science & Technology departments, the auditor is more
concerned with the outcome of the research and development
efforts and how the institutions and laboratories are fulfilling their
mandates. The emphasis on performance audit in Science Audit is
prevalent from 1991 onwards. For example, in 1991, the Report
had four Reviews. In the following years, there were 7 (1992),
8(1993), 11 (1994), 7 (1995), 5 (1996), 4 (1997), 8 (1998), 4 (1999).
Number of performance audit reviews in S&T, dropped sharply in
2003(2), 2004(2), 2005(1). But things have since improved
substantially and in 2005–06 Audit Report, there were four
Performance Audit reviews. Audit Plan for 2006–07 contemplates
bringing out eight Performance Audit reviews in its Audit Report
for fiscal 2006–07 (Audit Report 2008).
Audit Reports on Scientific Departments have brought out
very fine results of audit of these highly technical entities. Some of
502 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

the more important performance audit reviews brought out during

the period 1990 onwards are listed below:
(i) Central Drug Research Institute (Audit Report No.2 of
1991—para 28)
(ii) Working of Department of Biotechnology (Audit Report
No. 2 of 1992—para 4.2)
(iii) Central Pollution Control Board (Audit Report No. 2 of
1993—para 4.1)
(iv) Ganga Action Plan (Audit Report No 6 of 1995—para 5.1)
and No. 5A of 2000
(v) National Programme on Improved Chullahas (Audit
Report No. 6 of 1996—para 3.1)
(vi) Management of Intellectual Property Rights and
Technology Transfer (Audit Report No.5 of 1997—para
6.3)
(vii) Manpower Audit in CSIR (Audit Report No.5 of 1998—
ara 2.1)
(viii) Nuclear Power Profile (Audit Report No.5 of 1999—para
2.1)
(ix) Utilization of Lab Reserve Fund (Audit Report No.5 of
2000—para 3.1)
(x) IARI, New Delhi (Audit Report No.5 of 2002-para 2.1)
(xi) Technology Transfer in CSIR (Audit Report No.5 of 2003-
para 2.1)
(xii) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (Audit Report
No.5 of 2004—para 2)
(xiii) Management of Projects relating to utilization and
conservation of soil, water (undertaken by various
Institutes of ICAR) (Audit Report No.5 of 2005—para 2)
(xiv) Conservation and Protection of Tigers in Tiger Reserves
(Audit Report No. 18 of 2006)
(xv) Performance Audit on Development of
Telecommunication Technology by Centre for
Development of Telematics and transfer thereof for
manufacturing and commercialization (Audit Report No.
2 of 2007 (performance audit) -para 1)
A brief synopsis of some of the Reviews is given below:
Windmill Demonstration Project: In his Report of 1991, C&AG
reviewed the Windmill Demonstration Project3 of the Department
of Non-Conventional Energy Sources. The programme was
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 503

undertaken in 1987 to run through the Seventh Plan period in the

State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of obtaining more
extensive user response and create awareness in new areas to
provide inputs for subsequent extensive programmes. Against 150
windmills to be set up for demonstration programme, only 77 were
procured and of these only 29 were in working order. As regards
the user response and awareness in these new areas of energy
sources, apparently, due to large scale failure of the windmill in
the demonstration project, their response would have been quite
adverse. In summary, the entire concept was a failure.
Polymetallic Nodules Programme: The Project to develop a mining
system to explore Polymetallic Nodules (PMN)4 lying on the ocean
floor was commissioned during the Seventh Plan. This was to be
preceded by commissioning of the pilot plant. Amongst other
things, a Hydrosweep equipment system was procured in July 1990
(after delay of more than one year at a cost of about Rs. 7.04 crore)
but its performance did not match the expectations. Audit also
contented that this system was probably not even required because
before the installation of this system 4.10 lakh line kms of echo
sounding data (single beam bathymetric) had already been collected
and depth contour maps prepared, whereas the hydrosweep
system had carried out only 0.185 lakh line kms of bathymetry.
While the department contested this point, a note for discussion
in Planning Commission on Eighth Plan indicated that no headway
had been made in the development of mining system during the
entire Seventh Plan due to non availability of viable projects. The
department accepted this fact. The department was responding to
these problems by identifying proper mine sites etc and
prerequisite R&D work on mining had been taken up by Central
Mechanical Engineering Research Institute at the instance of
department (January 1992).
The short point of audit in this review was that department
unnecessarily procured a costly system which proved of no use
when the same work had already been completed by the
department. In the circumstances, the installation and deployment
of sea beam hydrosweep system would tantamount to infructuous
expenditure of more than Rs. 7 crore and that also in foreign
exchange those days when India was in a crisis as far as foreign
exchange was concerned.
504 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

Fast Breeder Test Reactor: In his Report of 1993 on Scientific

Department, C&AG mentioned about the huge delay in
commissioning of Fast Breeder Test Reactor5 of the Department of
Atomic Energy at Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research
Kalpakkam. The delay would, in turn, delay the commissioning of
500 MW Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor programme of the
department on which an expenditure of Rs. 34.28 crore had already
been incurred during 1985–92.
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI): In a review on Indian
Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)6 in his Report of 1996, C&AG
brought out that various councils namely Research, Academic,
Executive and Extension Councils, which provide assistance to the
Board of Management in proper and effective discharge of duties
and responsibilities did not meet as prescribed every quarter. The
Research Council did not meet even once during 1990–95. The result
of this gross negligence of their functions was obvious on the
research activities since, on the one hand no new projects were
undertaken during 1990–94, 230 ongoing projects were closed in
March 1994 without Research Council carrying out a review of
any of them. In any case, no review of such closed projects could
be done because no research project files (RPF) were prepared
and maintained separately for each project and no RPF was sent to
ICAR during the entire period of the Audit review. Audit was
informed that while RPF-I containing basic information was
maintained, RPF-II which gives annual progress of the research
and RPF-III which is the final report of the project were not
maintained in major divisions.
Nuclear Power Profile: In his Report of 1999, C&AG produced the
results of his audit on Nuclear Power Profile7 of the Department
of Atomic Energy. As envisaged in 1984, the profile projected
addition of 7880 MW of Nuclear Power by the end of year 2000
which would increase total nuclear power generation in the country
to nearly 10000 MW. However, audit found sluggish execution of
the project by the Department of Atomic Energy and Nuclear Power
Corporation which made it impossible to achieve the target. In
fact the results were absolutely bad since not a single plant was
complete till the end of March 1998 and therefore, no additional
capacity to the nuclear power was added till 1997–98 vis-à-vis a
target of 2645 MW. Four plants with capacity of 940 MW were
sanctioned in 1986–87 to be commissioned by 1995–96, were not
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 505

completed till March 1998. Two others with 500 MW each were
sanctioned in 1991 while remaining 14 plants with a combined
capacity of 5940 MW had not even been sanctioned as of March
1998.
Funds allocated for the project till March 1998 were Rs. 2617
crore against projected cost of about Rs.15000 crore. Audit noted
several execution defects which led to a mismatch between the
procurement of material and other important inputs like civil works,
equipment and infrastructure. Resultantly, material procured rather
hurriedly for Rs. 1069.61 crore was lying unused for the past 9
years (up to 1998). This included material worth Rs. 523.86 crore
for plants which had not even been sanctioned.
Ganga Action Plan:In the year 2000,8 C&AG brought out a Report
on Ganga Action Plan, the flagship scheme of the Ministry of
Environment and Forest whose purpose was to immediately reduce
the pollution load on the river Ganga. To oversee the
implementation of the Ganga Action Plan and lay down the policies
and programmes, Government of India constituted the Central
Ganga Authority (CGA) under the Chairmanship of the Prime
Minister in February 1985. The scheme approved by the Cabinet
in 1985 was 100% centrally sponsored schemes. It was being
executed by the Ganga Project Directorate subsequently, renamed
as National River Conservation Directorate as a wing of the
Ministry of Environment and Forest. The actual implementation
of the programme was being done by the various agencies in the
concerned States like Public Health Engineering Department, Water
and Sewage Boards, Pollution Control Boards, Development
Authorities, Local Bodies etc.
The initial objective of the Project was improvement of the
water quality of river Ganga to acceptable standards by preventing
the load reaching the river. However, in 1987, the quality of the
water in the river was downgraded to ‘Bathing class’ because
Ganga Action Plan phase-I did not cover pollution load of Ganga
fully. The GAP phase-II was launched in stages between 1993–
1996 and in 1996, other polluting towns left out and three tributaries
of river Ganga i.e., Yamuna, Damodar and Gomati were also
included. States that were involved in the implementation of the
project GAP-II were Uttaranchal, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh,
Bihar and West Bengal. The total fund released for the project
since inception was Rs.987.88 crore till March 2000.
506 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

This was the third review by C&AG on Ganga Action Plan9,

one of the most important subjects which affected a large population
of the country. The Audit findings on this project were very
revealing:
(i) the delay in completion of GAP-I was extraordinarily big
—against the completion date of March 1990, later on
extended to March 2000, it was incomplete till 2003.
Similarly, for GAP-II which was to be completed in 2001,
the date was extended till December 2008. The PAC was
very much concerned with this extremely slow pace of
development for the last 18 years under GAP-I and II10.
(ii) Audit Report pointed out a number of cases of financial
mismanagement by the State level implementing agencies
including diversion of funds to the tune of Rs. 36.07 crore
on unauthorized activities. The PAC came down heavily
on these and asked the Ministry to seek information from
the concerned states and give correct and up-to-date
position of the cases. The Ministry in their action taken
note was silent on the financial irregularities in states other
than West Bengal and Bihar. These were the only two
states who gave a reply to the Ministry. The PAC in their
Action Taken Report11 directed the Ministry to take
suitable remedial measures and fix responsibility in the
matter.
(iii) Regarding core schemes, Bihar was unable to obtain any
sanction from the Ministry in interception and diversion
schemes in phase-II of the plan because of its failure to
submit any detailed project reports. Similarly, for sewage
treatment plant, Bihar and West Bengal could not obtain
sanction of the Ministry for the sewage treatment plant
in phase-II of the scheme due to various reasons and the
results of all these , there were delays leading to cost and
time escalation, idling of the plants, mismatch with
interception and diversion schemes, technical flaws etc.
There were delays in completion of non core schemes of
the Ganga Action Plan having bearing on the river
pollution. Audit test check in the states revealed instances
of impairment of assets created at great public expense
because of neglect and lack of maintenance, besides delays
in their setting up.
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 507

(iv) Audit pointed out absence of a mechanism to evaluate

the estimation of sewage by the states and it had found
instances of incorrect estimations in the test check.
Additionally, there was no time schedule for submission
of Detailed Project Reports which were found to have
been delayed abnormally. Audit did not find much
evidence of a well-defined monitoring mechanism at the
Ministry to ensure adherence by the States of the time-
schedule prescribed at the instance of the Supreme Court.
The Apex body for this purpose headed by the Prime
Minister met only twice in 1994 and 1997.
This para was discussed in PAC who gave their Report in
February 2004.
The PAC pointed out to a World Bank sponsored study which
had concluded that inspite of the ‘massive Rs. 1500 crore plan
launched in 1980s to clean up the Ganga, its pollution levels
continued to be alarmingly high and were contributing to about 9
to 12 per cent of total disease burden in Uttar Pradesh’.
The Committee also expressed grave concern over throwing
of dead bodies and carcasses in Ganga river.
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources: National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources (NBPGR) a constituent unit of Indian Council
of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and established in 1976 has the
mandate of collection, introduction, evaluation, conservation,
documentation and pest free exchange of Plant Genetic Resources
(PGR). An audit review12 that focused on issues concerned with
management of plant genetic resources by NBPGR disclosed that
NBPGR was yet to complete the evaluation, conservation and
documentation of germplasm samples collected during the period
1997–03: Coordination between NBPGR and its regional stations,
National Active Germplasm Sites and indenters in obtaining
feedback on germplasm samples sent to them for evaluation also
needed improvement. It is the sole authority for issuing permits
for import of agri-horticultural plant germplasm samples for
research purposes. The responsibility of carrying out quarantine
tests to ensure that imported plant germplasm samples as well as
germplasm samples to be exported are free from diseases and pests,
also rests with NBPGR. The National Containment Facility
established in September 2001 at a total cost of Rs.3.67 crore to
conduct quarantine tests for transgenic germplasm samples
remained unused. The objectives of the projects of establishment
508 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

of Gene Bank for Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Rs. 90.35 lakh),
National Facility for Plant Tissue Culture Repository (Rs. 75.04
lakh) and Regeneration of Agri-biodiversity (Rs. 51.92 lakh) were
not achieved.
National Programme on Improved Chullahas: An interesting scheme
called ‘National Programme on Improved Chullahas’ was reviewed
in C&AG’s Audit Report13 on Scientific Departments of 1996. The
case brought out the usual contradiction in our scheme formulation
and execution. A very efficient, smokeless environment was
promised by these Improved Chullahas. In practice, as audit review
found out, the programme design and implementation was highly
defective. It also reflected on quality of scrutiny of the scheme by
all concerned. The audit review covered performance of the
programme for the period 1990–95 (The National Programme was
running from April 1985). The modus operandi was that the
Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources would subsidise
for providing improved Chullahas to 112 lakh households through
State Governments and other nodal agencies under the scheme.
Audit review showed that upto the year 1994–95, during the
10 years of operation of the programme only 16 per cent of the
targeted households were supplied ‘Chullahas’. At this rate, the
Report reckoned, it would take another 40 to 50 years to cover the
targeted households under the programme. Bulk of the Chullahas
installed in various states were non-functional for one reason or
the other. Many of them had been dismantled. Above all, technical
efficiency of the Chullahas was also in doubt. The programme had
no core organizational support and there was hardly any public
awareness or publicity. A big failure was of Technical Back up
Unit (TBU) established in each state to aid, advise and extend a
technical support to nodal implementing agencies and to carry out
research and development. TBU was also to impart training to
self employed workers. But TBU failed on this count miserably.
Feed back through independent evaluation and surveys pointed
out that intended benefits were far from being realized. In nutshell,
Rs. 79 crore spent as subsidy and other incidental expenditure on
the programme mainly proved unproductive. In many states heavy
inventory of unsold Chullahas was lying. The scheme was closed
down thereafter.
Manpower Audit of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research: In his
Audit Report for the year ended March 199714, C&AG reviewed
the functioning of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 509

(CSIR) which is the premier institution in the field and under whose
umbrella there were at that time 41 National Laboratories and
Institutions spread all over the country carrying out Research and
Development (R&D) in diverse disciplines. This review on CSIR
focused on manpower resources, specially issues concerning
manpower planning, recruitment, employment and promotion. It
covered six laboratories of CSIR and the HQrs.
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) did not
have a proper mechanism in place for any systematic assessment
of its manpower requirement; it did not comply with Government’s
instructions regarding constitution of internal work study units
or internal staff inspection units for laying down norms etc. Ratio
of scientific and non-scientific staff in the six test checked
laboratories was much higher than the ratio of 1:1.5 recommended
by a Committee to review the functions and structure of the CSIR
—the recommendations of the Committee had been approved by
the Science Advisory Council (SAC) to the Prime Minister as well
as the General Body (GB) of the Council. It was also found that 14
laboratories had 122 scientists and 500 technicians over and above
the sanctioned strength as of July 1995. The Council did not follow
Government’s directives for 10 per cent reduction in posts on the
administrative side. A peculiar situation that existed was that 49
scientists and 155 technicians in six laboratories were performing
functions not related to R&D.
The situation in CSIR HQrs was no better with 83 scientists
and 222 technicians doing work without any R&D contents. The
Institute in Bhubaneswar (Central Salt and Marime Chemical
Research) had engaged 32 to 45 security personnel for 4 years (cost:
Rs. 32.1 lakh) against shortage of only 3 to 5 security personnel.
There were cases of persons appointed on regular basis for
sponsored programme causing administrative problems
subsequently. More than 1100 people were engaged as casual
workers for work of regular nature—all these were appointed
against orders of the DG.
A serious point brought out was that persons not possessing
academic/ technical qualifications prescribed for entry level posts
were appointed/ promoted to scientific or technical posts. Most
of them were actually deployed on non-R&D work. Time bound
assessment promotion scheme meant for scientific personnel was
by and by extended to non-technical posts also including
Compounders, Nursing Sisters, Malis, Artists, etc. Cadre Review
to provide promotional avenues to its administrative staff was
510 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

done without approval of the Finance Minister even though it was

so required. It was also noted that promotions out of cadre review
were made retrospectively ignoring the advice of Member
(Finance). Several cases were noted where administrative staff were
inducted into technical scheme to provide them benefits of faster
promotion and higher retirement age. A large number of them
did not possess the prescribed technical qualifications.
Commenting on the Research activities of the laboratories Audit
pointed out that scientists of six laboratories during 1992–97
developed just one technology by a laboratory (ITRC) which has a
strength of 108 scientists on an average basis during 1992–97. There
was no effective management system for efficient functioning of
manpower operation.
Conservation and Protection of Tigers in Tiger Reserves: This report,
brought out by C&AG in 2006, 15 dealt with one of the most
discussed subjects viz. the declining population of tigers in the
habitats. Audit study laid bare the tall claims of Project Tiger,
launched with such great fanfare and expectation in 1973 ‘to protect
tigers and to ensure a viable population of tigers in India’.
The total number of tiger population in 1984 was 3623 in the
country of which 1121 were in 15 tiger reserves created upto 1984.
In 2001–02, while the overall population of tigers in the country
declined to 2906, that in the tiger reserves went up from 1121 to
1141 in 2001–02—an increase that speaks more of the ineffectiveness
of measures taken under the Project Tiger.
Of the several observations of Audit, some more important
were:
(i) Against the declared norm of average area of 1500 sq.
kms for tiger reserve, the actual area was mostly much
less—15 out of 28 tiger reserves had an area of less than
half the prescribed area. In six out of these 15, even the
core area was less than the prescribed 300 kms. Human
settlements existed on 14 of these and what was more
alarming such settlements were there in core areas in two
of the six tiger reserves.
(ii) There was no system of any monitoring of implementation
of the project by the Project Tiger Directorate. It had just
7 people on staff.
(iii) With such depleted strength it was unable to do any
worthwhile monitoring. Relocation of families living
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 511

within the tiger reserve was not successful for want of

resources.
(iv) Approved Management Plans were not prepared in all
projects and the central assistance was released without
these.
There was some impact of the para on the Ministry. It stated
(March 2006) that the core areas of tiger reserves can be increased
once the buffer zone are free from disturbances and a National
Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) with statutory powers was
being established to address such issues. NTCA has since been
constituted w.e.f. September 2006 as a statutory body after
amendment to Wild Life (Protection) Act 2006.
Regarding the annual operational plan on the basis of
management plan for each tiger reserve, the Government stated
in March 2006 that a Bill had been introduced in Parliament for
amending the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 for according statutory
authority to Project Tiger Directorate and to have a say in the
planning process of the State projects.
512 THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

NOTES: CHAPTER-11
1
Government of India, Department of Science and Technology OM No. DST/
JSF/17(3) (1)/83 dated 28th December, 1983
2
C&AG’s Manual of Standing Orders (Audit)
3
C&AG’s Report for the year ended 31 March 1990 Union Government (Scientific
Departments) No. 2 of 1991
4
Para 10.2 of C&AG’s Audit Report (Scientific Departments) for the year ended
31 March 1991
5
Para 2.1 of C&AG’s Report for the year ended March 1992 Union Government
(Scientific Departments) No. 2 of 1993
6
C&AG’s Report for the year ended 31 March 1995 Union Government (Scientific
Departments) No.6 of 1996
7
Para 2.1 of C&AG’s Report for the year ended March 1998 Union Government
(Scientific Departments) No.5 of 1999
8
C&AG’s Audit Report No. 5A of 2000, Union Government (Scientific
Departments) Audit Report No.5 of 2004
9
The other two reviews appeared in C&AG’s Audit Report on Scientific
Departments for the year ended 31 March 1989, 12 of 1990 (in C&AG T.N. Chaturvedi’s
time) and Report of the C&AG for the year 31 March 1994, Union Government
Scientific Department mentioned in Report No. 5A of 2000 (in C&AG V.K. Shunglu’s
time)
10
26th Report, Public Accounts Committee 2005–06
11
26th Report, Public Accounts Committee 2005–06
12
Para 2 of Audit Report for the year ended March 2003, No.5 of 2004, Union
Government (Scientific Departments)
13
Para 3 of C&AG’s Audit Report for the year ended 31 March 1995 No.6 of
1996 Union Government (Scientific Departments)
14
Para 2 of C&AG’s Audit Report for the year ended March 1997 No.5 of 1998
Union Government (Scientific Departments)
15
C&AG’s Audit Report No. 18 of Performance Audit of the year 2006
 AUDIT OF SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS 513

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
GAP Ganga Action Plan
GB General Body
IARI Indian Agricultural Research Institute
ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research
ITRC Industrial Toxicology Research Centre
NBPGR National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
NTCA National Tiger Conservation Authority
PGR Plant Genetic Resources
PMN Polymetallic Nodules Programme
R&D Research and Development