Towards the end of his tenure, Mr Murmu faced criticism and allegations of indiscretion, including the posting of a junior officer with questionable integrity to one of its overseas audit offices, despite protests from senior management regarding the IAAS officer’s probity.
The officer had to be recalled from the posting. Although allegations were circulating in the media and many senior IAAS officers had brought it to the CAG’s attention, instead of preventing the posting, the officer was allowed to proceed.
Only a month later, with just days remaining in Mr Murmu’s tenure, the officer was suspended following a quick inquiry. Many IAAS officers were agitated by another significant development during Mr Murmu’s tenure when the CAG tabled (August 2023) a significant audit report No. 7 of 2023 to Parliament titled Compliance Audit on Toll Operations of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
The report uncovered a range of irregularities and inefficiencies in the functioning of the NHAI across Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Kerala, including Dwarka Expressway in NCR. These findings sparked controversy, not only over governance lapses but also due to anomalies within the CAG’s own handling of the aftermath.
The report exposed critical issues in toll collection practices. It highlighted that NHAI continued to levy toll fees at several plazas, including Nathavalasa, Chalageri and Hebbalu, during periods of construction delays, contravening the National Highways Fee (Amendment) Rules, 2013.
These rules explicitly mandate that toll collection should cease when construction deadlines are missed. Despite this, over ₹124 crore was collected from commuters between May 2020 and March 2021.
Similarly, the report noted a delay in reducing toll fees at the Paranur toll plaza and unauthorised annual fee revisions at Madpam, further indicating a lack of compliance with established norms.
Beyond toll collection, the audit identified substantial deficiencies in highway maintenance. Many stretches of road were found to be in poor condition, failing to meet prescribed standards. Maintenance delays exacerbated these issues, resulting in deteriorating infrastructure that posed risks to commuters.
The report also highlighted the inadequate provision of amenities such as rest areas, emergency services and signage at several toll plazas. These shortcomings revealed systemic inefficiencies in ensuring the safety and convenience of highway users.
The report’s findings drew a strong reaction from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, who oversees the ministry, defended the government’s position while also expressing displeasure with the responses provided by ministry officials to the CAG during the audit process.
Gadkari criticised these officials for their inadequate communication, which, he argued, allowed the CAG to adopt an erroneous methodology in assessing certain projects. One of the key issues involved the Dwarka Expressway, where the CAG noted that construction costs had escalated to Rs 251 crore per kilometre, compared to an initial estimate of Rs 18.2 crore per kilometre.
The ministry countered that the CAG’s calculations were overly simplistic, as they failed to account for additional infrastructure such as flyovers, underpasses, and tunnels, which significantly contributed to the overall costs. Officials further contended that the Government had actually achieved a 12% saving in construction costs against estimates when awarding contracts for the expressway.
Gadkari directed that responsibility be fixed for the lapses in responding to the CAG, emphasising the need for better coordination and accountability within the ministry. The CAG’s conclusions appeared to have been factually suspect.
Adding to the controversy was an internal development within the CAG’s office. The Principal Director responsible for the audit was transferred to Kerala by the CAG himself, the same individual who signed the report. This decision raised questions about the CAG’s handling of the situation.
Critics alleged that the transfer was punitive, targeting an official who had exposed significant irregularities. This incongruity—where the Principal Director, instead of being commended for diligence, was seemingly sidelined—cast a shadow on the CAG’s own commitment to transparency and accountability.
Whether the transfer was motivated by administrative considerations or as a response to the audit’s findings remains unclear, but its timing and context raised concerns about the internal dynamics of the organisation.
The CAG’s report, despite the controversies it generated, underscored the urgent need for reform in national highways governance. It highlighted systemic issues requiring stricter regulatory adherence, improved oversight and better resource allocation to address maintenance and operational inefficiencies.
However, the report also revealed the complexities involved in ensuring accountability within both governmental and independent institutions.
Gadkari’s defence and the ministry’s pushback against the findings reflected the challenges of reconciling audit bodies’ conclusions with the realities of large-scale infrastructure projects.
Similarly, the handling of the Principal Director within the CAG’s office exposed vulnerabilities in maintaining internal accountability.
Ultimately, the controversies surrounding this audit report serve as a reminder of the need for greater coherence and transparency across all levels of public administration within the CAG. Both the government (for its lack of timely and appropriate response) and the CAG (for poorly handling what could have been a simple internal administrative issue) must ensure that their actions and responses not only address immediate concerns but also uphold the principles of fairness, diligence and institutional integrity.
This case exemplifies the delicate balance required to navigate the intersections of oversight, governance and reform in India’s public infrastructure landscape.
Many serving officials felt that the morale of IAAS and IAAD was at its lowest ebb when the new CAG, K. Sanjay Murthy, IAS-89 (H.P.), took charge at the end of November 2024. IAAD awaits expectantly the strategy and priorities of the new incumbent.
(Excerpted from CAG: Ensuring Accountability Amidst Controversies An Inside View by P Sesh Kumar, Published by White Falcon Publishing)
