Questions surrounding accounts controller(Land): ‘Preferred officials’ in audits, pressure on transfer

• Allegations of assigning duties without approval, with the same officials being given audit responsibilities for multiple districts
• Investigation also looking into allegations of attempts to extract financial benefits
• Land Ministry forms a committee headed by a joint secretary to investigate the allegations
• Same official assigned audit responsibilities for multiple districts
• One official given responsibility for all three hill districts instead of Chattogram North and South

When questions arise about the conduct of those responsible for auditing government funds and detecting financial irregularities, the issue goes beyond the administrative decisions of a particular office. It raises fundamental questions about accountability for public money, transparency in the distribution of responsibilities and the use of administrative authority. Multiple allegations against Md Mashuk Billah Aref Khan, Controller of Accounts (Revenue) at the Controller of Accounts (Land) office, have now brought precisely such questions to the fore.

The allegations include sending officials to audit the offices of district commissioners beyond their assigned responsibilities without approval from the ministry, assigning the same official to audit multiple districts, making transfers in violation of rules, and attempting to extract financial benefits through intimidation and threats.

The most sensitive aspect of the allegations concerns the allocation of audit responsibilities. An audit is not merely an official assignment or a routine tour; it involves scrutiny of government accounts and expenditure and is directly linked to the financial accountability of the institutions concerned. Therefore, who conducts an audit, how the person is assigned the responsibility and where the administrative approval for that assignment comes from are all important questions.

Taking the allegations into account, the Land Ministry formed a three-member investigation committee on September 7. The committee, headed by ministry Joint Secretary Akhtar Hossain, has been asked to submit its report within seven days. The relevant office has also reportedly been asked to provide necessary documents. These details were found after reviewing a written complaint submitted to the ministry and several related documents. A copy of the complaint has been obtained by this correspondent.

Land Ministry Senior Secretary ASM Saleh Ahmed said, “The allegations have been taken into consideration. An investigation committee headed by a joint secretary has been formed and it has been asked to submit its report within a week. Once the report is received, action will be taken in accordance with the law. However, it would not be appropriate to make any comment before that.”

It has been alleged that officials holding the position of Accounts Supervisor (Revenue) are supposed to be responsible for auditing the offices of district commissioners. Instead, officials one rank above them, holding the position of Assistant Controller of Accounts (Revenue), have been assigned these duties.

According to the rules, if a first-class officer is to be assigned work outside their designated responsibilities, verbal or written approval from the ministry is required. In this case, however, no such approval was obtained from the Land Ministry, according to the complaint.

Documents show that on May 5, Abul Kashem, Assistant Controller of Accounts (Revenue) for Dhaka Division, was assigned an audit. He had previously also been assigned responsibility for auditing the Department of Land Records and Surveys.

This raises a basic question: Why is the same official repeatedly being assigned sensitive audit responsibilities? Was there any written criterion for distributing such duties? Were other qualified officials considered? Or were the assignments made based on personal preferences?

The complaint also names Mohammad Anisur Rahman, Assistant Controller of Accounts (Revenue) for Mymensingh Division. In June, he was assigned to audit the office of the Mymensingh Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, he was also given responsibility for auditing the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Narayanganj.

There is no basis for automatically concluding that assigning multiple district audits to one official is illegal. But the question is: What was the administrative rationale behind such an allocation?

If an official was assigned audits in multiple districts because of their expertise, experience or a specific administrative necessity, what was the documented basis for that decision? And if other officials were equally qualified, why were they excluded? An even more important question is whether the decision resulted in additional expenditure from public funds in the form of travel, allowances or other costs.

Another serious issue has emerged from the allegations. It has been alleged that Didarul Alam Patwari, Assistant Controller of Accounts (Revenue) for Chattogram Division, was assigned responsibility for auditing all three hill districts instead of officials from Chattogram North or Chattogram South.

Why was one official given responsibility for auditing three separate districts? The answer to that question is also important.

If audit responsibilities are distributed on the basis of specific policies, competency criteria and administrative necessity, there should be a documented explanation for the decision. If there is no such written basis, a natural question arises: Why was that particular official selected?

The investigation committee should therefore examine not only whether the order itself was lawful, but also the process through which the decision was made.

The complaint alleges that officials belonging to a particular circle were given priority when audit responsibilities were distributed. By repeatedly assigning audits to preferred officials, an internal sphere of influence was allegedly created within the allocation process.

If proven true, this would not merely be an administrative irregularity; it could also raise questions about the impartiality of the audit system. The strength of an audit lies in its independence and neutrality. If the allocation of responsibilities to those conducting audits is itself based on a questionable process, it can naturally undermine confidence in their audit activities.

It is learnt that the investigation committee will examine the pattern of audit assignments, the criteria used to select officials, previous orders and relevant documents to establish whether the allegations are true.

There are also allegations that Accounts Supervisors (Revenue) in the second grade were transferred in violation of rules. Some officials were allegedly threatened and intimidated in an attempt to extract financial benefits.

Officials who refused to follow certain instructions were allegedly threatened with transfers to other districts and the filing of cases against them.

If proven true, these allegations cannot simply be dismissed as a matter of “office management”. Transfers are a normal administrative practice in government service. But if such authority is used to intimidate employees, threaten punishment or serve personal interests, it raises questions about the abuse of administrative power.

A member of the investigation committee said the allegations would be examined seriously. The committee will also review the tour schedules of officials assigned to audits, TA/DA bills, vouchers, approval documents, audit reports, duty-allocation orders and relevant financial records.

In particular, if the same official has repeatedly been assigned audits in different districts, the committee will examine the official’s travel expenses, duration of assignments, audit findings and the decisions behind the allocation of those responsibilities.

When contacted about the allegations, Controller Md Mashuk Billah Aref Khan said he had followed the rules and practices that had been followed previously. He said he had worked at the field level before taking up his current position and had been serving there for the past one and a half years.

“If I have made any mistake, it may have been due to my lack of knowledge,” he said.

He added that a hearing on the matter before the investigation committee is scheduled for September 13.

The Land Ministry has already formed a three-member investigation committee, which has reportedly sought relevant documents. The committee is expected to examine separately the allocation of audit responsibilities, selection of officials, ministry approvals, transfers, additional assignments, expenditure of public funds and the alleged attempts to obtain financial benefits.

If the allegations are proven, the questions will not be limited to one official. They will also concern oversight and accountability within the administrative system. The purpose of an investigation, after all, is not to establish someone’s guilt in advance, but to uncover the truth.

One thing, however, is clear: when those entrusted with auditing public funds themselves face questions over the allocation of responsibilities and administrative decisions, those questions must be answered through documents, rules and a transparent investigation.