DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0132
Mr. II. J.
McIntosh.
3 Jan., 1908.
126
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
obliges you to send up a matter for the sanction of
the Government of India, are you satisfied that the
position now is as it should be?—Yes, except that
frequently a needlessly petty reference is insisted
upon.
17545. Speaking generally, the Accountant-General
exercises his discretion fairly reasonably ?—Yes, speak-
ing generally, and subject to the delegation of the
powers which the Local Government has now asked
for.
17546. Do you mean that if the Local Government
gets the larger powers asked for, half, or more than
half, the references it now has to make to the
Government of India will become unnecessary?—Yes.
17547. Do you say that the Accountant-General is,
in your opinion, needlessly particular in bringing to
the notice of the Local Government technical irregu-
larities on the part of its own subordinate authorities ?
—I do not like the word “ needlessly ” ; I understand
he has to do it, and I should like to see him invested
with power either of taking no notice, or of simply
himself passing orders.
17548. Has not the Local Government itself power
to relieve municipal expenditure by stating that
nothing shall be challenged within a year or any limit
you like to take ?—As a matter of fact, the question
of local audit is now under consideration, and no
doubt that is a point which will be considered.
17549. In so far as it is unsatisfactory, and in so far
as there are needless references from the Accountant-
General to the Local Government with regard to the
action of local officers, would not the remedy largely
lie in the hands of the Local Government itself, by
giving those local officers increased powers ?—That is
not what I meant; I was referring to petty irregu-
larities brought to notice by the Accountant-General.
17550. But you mentioned a case which had to go
up to you as Financial Secretary ?—Yes, but that was
an expenditure not contemplated by the Act.
17551. Why could you not have given power to your
Collectors to sanction such expenditure ?—It cannot be
sanctioned at all, because it is some petty expenditure
which the Act has not contemplated, and therefore it
requires the sanction of Government; but the sanction
of Government cannot be obtained because it is
illegal.
17552. Have not Accountants-General been em-
powered to write off at their own discretion small
sums up to Rs. 10 ?—I believe they have, and I should
like to see it increased to a larger amount.
17553. It has been suggested by various witnesses
that the Head of an administrative Department, such
as the Director of Public Instruction, should have the
power of re-appropriation between sub-heads under
the head of the provincial expenditure which he
administers; do you see any objection to that,
assuming, of course, that the Accountant-General
certifies that the re-appropriation can be made?—No,
I should not object to that, within limits.
17554. Would you allow re-appropriation as between
major heads?—That is rather a difficult question to
answer.
17555. The position at any rate would be materially
different as compared with re-appropriation between
sub-heads of the same budget?—Yes, materially
different.
17556. From your experience in the Government of
India Secretariat should you say that the allegation
that the Government of India interfere unduly in
matters of detail when dealing with provincial schemes
of expenditure, is well founded?—I think detail is
touched upon a good deal.
17557. I am speaking rather of a scheme which has
to come forward under a financial rule because it
involves the creation of an appointment of Rs. 300,
for example. That scheme contains a number of
other- administrative details which, if they stood by
themselves, the provincial Government might sanction,
but which now have to go up to the Government of
India for sanction. Do you think the Government
of India interferes unduly in those matters ?—-I think
there was a tendency to go into the whole of a scheme
including matters which did not require the sanction
of the Government of India.
17558. Would you say the Finance Department
were special sinners in that respect, or that the other
departments were also guilty?—That I can hardly
answer ; but there is always a greater tendency on the
part of the Finance Department, from motives of
economy, to go into closer details.
17559. Until quite lately settlements with the pro-
vinces were only temporary,—quinquennial—and the
basis of the quinquennial settlement was the normal
expenditure of the provinces as then existing ?—Yes.
17560. Consequently, if a province got a scheme
sanctioned during the quinquennial settlement, it
might for the time being defray the cost out of surplus
revenues, and when the next quinquennial settlement
came, they might say “ This is part of our normal
scale of expenditure and therefore you must give us
a better settlement ” ?—So they ought to.
17561. Therefore for that reason might it not be
necessary for the Finance Department to look into
those details somewhat carefully from the Govern-
ment of India side of the case ?-—I think the less
detailed interference the better.
17562. Did you in the Expenditure Branch think any
Local Governments were unduly extravagant in matters
of expenditure ?—Occasionally schemes came up which
were possibly rather extravagant, but [ am not con-
vinced now that it was worth while our interfering.
17563. Was there, possibly, any tendency to relax
financial rules and Civil Service Regulations, or other-
wise, for the benefit of members of the Indian Civil
Service or other officials ?—Not for the benefit of any
particular class of people. But there is a tendency in
Local Governments to get for its officers what the
officers ought, in their opinion, to get, and I think
that is a very proper spirit to exhibit.
17564. Is there any tendency to consider the in-
terests of the officer as against the interests of the tax-
payer ?—No, I would not put it in that way.
17565. You had a good deal to do with opium work
as Deputy Secretary ? Was there not a good deal of
trouble caused by a provision in the Opium Act,
which requires that all Opium Rules should receive
the previous sanction of the Governor-General in
Council ?—Yes.
17566. Do you agree with the opinion expressed by
one or two Local Governments that in sections 8 and 13
of the Opium Act the words “ subject to the control
of the Governor - General in Council ” should be
substituted for “ subject to the previous sanction of
the Governor - General in Council,” so as to avoid
reference to the Government of India on all matters
of detail with regard to the Opium Regulations?—
Yes, I am not prepared to say that a change should be
made, but it seems to be a good suggestion, and I am
inclined to agree with it.
17567. It has been alleged that the existence of a
permanent settlement in Bengal give the Revenue
Officer very little detailed revenue work to do, but
one witness combated that assertion, and said, on the
contrary, that he had a great deal to do ? What is
your idea ?—Our revenue work now involves a great
deal of settlement and land-record work.
17568. Have you settlements in respect to estates
under Government management ?—Yes.
17569. The last witness stated that there is a certain
amount of work with regard to certificates ; is a
certificate practically the process by which arrears of
revenue are collected?—Not arrears of land revenue ;
these are collected under the Sale Law. Arrears of
cesses are realized by the certificate procedure.
17570. That is all rather routine work ?—Yes.
17571. Does your chief revenue work simply lie in
the direction of settlements, when there is a settlement
of a Government estate, and in work connected with
land-records ?—Yes, and land registration.
17572. You have to deal with a certain amount of
work in connection with the partition of estates.
Does all that work go up to the Board ?—Yes.
17573. Is that necessary ?—Probably not.
17574. Some of your permanent estates are quite of
small size. As to small estates, might not the Collector
deal with the partition, subject, of course, to an appeal
to the Commissioner if a party was dissatisfied ?—The
Collector does make the partition, and then it goes up
McIntosh.
3 Jan., 1908.
126
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
obliges you to send up a matter for the sanction of
the Government of India, are you satisfied that the
position now is as it should be?—Yes, except that
frequently a needlessly petty reference is insisted
upon.
17545. Speaking generally, the Accountant-General
exercises his discretion fairly reasonably ?—Yes, speak-
ing generally, and subject to the delegation of the
powers which the Local Government has now asked
for.
17546. Do you mean that if the Local Government
gets the larger powers asked for, half, or more than
half, the references it now has to make to the
Government of India will become unnecessary?—Yes.
17547. Do you say that the Accountant-General is,
in your opinion, needlessly particular in bringing to
the notice of the Local Government technical irregu-
larities on the part of its own subordinate authorities ?
—I do not like the word “ needlessly ” ; I understand
he has to do it, and I should like to see him invested
with power either of taking no notice, or of simply
himself passing orders.
17548. Has not the Local Government itself power
to relieve municipal expenditure by stating that
nothing shall be challenged within a year or any limit
you like to take ?—As a matter of fact, the question
of local audit is now under consideration, and no
doubt that is a point which will be considered.
17549. In so far as it is unsatisfactory, and in so far
as there are needless references from the Accountant-
General to the Local Government with regard to the
action of local officers, would not the remedy largely
lie in the hands of the Local Government itself, by
giving those local officers increased powers ?—That is
not what I meant; I was referring to petty irregu-
larities brought to notice by the Accountant-General.
17550. But you mentioned a case which had to go
up to you as Financial Secretary ?—Yes, but that was
an expenditure not contemplated by the Act.
17551. Why could you not have given power to your
Collectors to sanction such expenditure ?—It cannot be
sanctioned at all, because it is some petty expenditure
which the Act has not contemplated, and therefore it
requires the sanction of Government; but the sanction
of Government cannot be obtained because it is
illegal.
17552. Have not Accountants-General been em-
powered to write off at their own discretion small
sums up to Rs. 10 ?—I believe they have, and I should
like to see it increased to a larger amount.
17553. It has been suggested by various witnesses
that the Head of an administrative Department, such
as the Director of Public Instruction, should have the
power of re-appropriation between sub-heads under
the head of the provincial expenditure which he
administers; do you see any objection to that,
assuming, of course, that the Accountant-General
certifies that the re-appropriation can be made?—No,
I should not object to that, within limits.
17554. Would you allow re-appropriation as between
major heads?—That is rather a difficult question to
answer.
17555. The position at any rate would be materially
different as compared with re-appropriation between
sub-heads of the same budget?—Yes, materially
different.
17556. From your experience in the Government of
India Secretariat should you say that the allegation
that the Government of India interfere unduly in
matters of detail when dealing with provincial schemes
of expenditure, is well founded?—I think detail is
touched upon a good deal.
17557. I am speaking rather of a scheme which has
to come forward under a financial rule because it
involves the creation of an appointment of Rs. 300,
for example. That scheme contains a number of
other- administrative details which, if they stood by
themselves, the provincial Government might sanction,
but which now have to go up to the Government of
India for sanction. Do you think the Government
of India interferes unduly in those matters ?—-I think
there was a tendency to go into the whole of a scheme
including matters which did not require the sanction
of the Government of India.
17558. Would you say the Finance Department
were special sinners in that respect, or that the other
departments were also guilty?—That I can hardly
answer ; but there is always a greater tendency on the
part of the Finance Department, from motives of
economy, to go into closer details.
17559. Until quite lately settlements with the pro-
vinces were only temporary,—quinquennial—and the
basis of the quinquennial settlement was the normal
expenditure of the provinces as then existing ?—Yes.
17560. Consequently, if a province got a scheme
sanctioned during the quinquennial settlement, it
might for the time being defray the cost out of surplus
revenues, and when the next quinquennial settlement
came, they might say “ This is part of our normal
scale of expenditure and therefore you must give us
a better settlement ” ?—So they ought to.
17561. Therefore for that reason might it not be
necessary for the Finance Department to look into
those details somewhat carefully from the Govern-
ment of India side of the case ?-—I think the less
detailed interference the better.
17562. Did you in the Expenditure Branch think any
Local Governments were unduly extravagant in matters
of expenditure ?—Occasionally schemes came up which
were possibly rather extravagant, but [ am not con-
vinced now that it was worth while our interfering.
17563. Was there, possibly, any tendency to relax
financial rules and Civil Service Regulations, or other-
wise, for the benefit of members of the Indian Civil
Service or other officials ?—Not for the benefit of any
particular class of people. But there is a tendency in
Local Governments to get for its officers what the
officers ought, in their opinion, to get, and I think
that is a very proper spirit to exhibit.
17564. Is there any tendency to consider the in-
terests of the officer as against the interests of the tax-
payer ?—No, I would not put it in that way.
17565. You had a good deal to do with opium work
as Deputy Secretary ? Was there not a good deal of
trouble caused by a provision in the Opium Act,
which requires that all Opium Rules should receive
the previous sanction of the Governor-General in
Council ?—Yes.
17566. Do you agree with the opinion expressed by
one or two Local Governments that in sections 8 and 13
of the Opium Act the words “ subject to the control
of the Governor - General in Council ” should be
substituted for “ subject to the previous sanction of
the Governor - General in Council,” so as to avoid
reference to the Government of India on all matters
of detail with regard to the Opium Regulations?—
Yes, I am not prepared to say that a change should be
made, but it seems to be a good suggestion, and I am
inclined to agree with it.
17567. It has been alleged that the existence of a
permanent settlement in Bengal give the Revenue
Officer very little detailed revenue work to do, but
one witness combated that assertion, and said, on the
contrary, that he had a great deal to do ? What is
your idea ?—Our revenue work now involves a great
deal of settlement and land-record work.
17568. Have you settlements in respect to estates
under Government management ?—Yes.
17569. The last witness stated that there is a certain
amount of work with regard to certificates ; is a
certificate practically the process by which arrears of
revenue are collected?—Not arrears of land revenue ;
these are collected under the Sale Law. Arrears of
cesses are realized by the certificate procedure.
17570. That is all rather routine work ?—Yes.
17571. Does your chief revenue work simply lie in
the direction of settlements, when there is a settlement
of a Government estate, and in work connected with
land-records ?—Yes, and land registration.
17572. You have to deal with a certain amount of
work in connection with the partition of estates.
Does all that work go up to the Board ?—Yes.
17573. Is that necessary ?—Probably not.
17574. Some of your permanent estates are quite of
small size. As to small estates, might not the Collector
deal with the partition, subject, of course, to an appeal
to the Commissioner if a party was dissatisfied ?—The
Collector does make the partition, and then it goes up