Central Chronicle News
Balod, Apr 30: The MARKFED of Balod District has faced many irregularities right from transportation of paddy to its collection and other irregularities. In the recent surprise inspection by Collector at Paddy collection centre in Jagtara, Fundabhata, Malighori and Dhobanpuri, 5736 bags of paddy were found to be extra and in which as per 40 kg filling in each gunny back, a total of 2294 quintal paddy was found to be in the excess. On this Collector issued show cause notice to Collection Centre and District MARKFED officer. Before this issue would have got resolved, a truck with 285 gunny bags was seized by the administration for illegally being transported from Malighori paddy collection centre. After this it is being anticipated that with more paddy found in paddy collection centre, there are chances of some major irregularity in it.
In this entire case, District Collector Ranu Sahu informed that she came to know that paddy is being transported in a truck without ‘Delivery Order’ (DO) from Malighori paddy centre. When the truck was checked, the charges were found to be correct and the vehicle was seized.
From where came 114 quintal paddy?
Recently a truck bearing No. CG 08 B 0452 was seized with 285 gunny bags, but from where this paddy had come is not clear, as the work of paddy purchase and its transportation had been completed by March 2019. After this finding such a lot of paddy in suspicious conditions raises many questions and even the logic given by the District Marketing Officer is also very shocking.
District MARKFED try to show the illegal transportation as legal:
It is notable that the officers from Revenue Department seized the truck taking paddy from Lalighori Collection Centre, as the DO No. in the truck was not matching with the actual DO and seizing the truck parked it in Balod thana. But the District MARKFED officer (DMO) during talks made an efforts to hold this DO as valid, but the officer was asked as to from which all societies 285 bags of paddy was brought, he could not give satisfactory reply and said that it needs to be checked.For one society there is only one DO. In this case opinion of many other known persons and the officers posted earlier was taken and in this thing one issue came forward and that was only one DO is issued from any paddy purchase society, but here it was said that paddy was taken from some societies, which is objectionable.
Difference in DO and the number with truck driver
In this entire case, the officers have done not just one mistake but many.
The truck in which the paddy was brought, in that the truck No. and the DO letter issued from Department was different. And in this case, district MARKFED officer informed that since the earlier truck which was brining paddy developed breakdown and therefore it was shifted into another truck.
When the DMO was contacted in this regard, as to whether the goods once taken in a truck with number can be changed without his information to him, then the DMO Balod said that on humanitarian ground it can be changed. But if it is to be done officially, then another DO has to be made and in this it is proved that in this transportation, there is involvement of departmental persons.
Meanwhile it has to be seen as to on what all points the District administration conducts inquiry and whether they would be able to take action against the officers who are posing loss to government exchequer in order to pass on benefits to contractors.
Central Chronicle News