The Justice Ghose Commission continued questioning accounts officials on Wednesday regarding the Kaleshwaram project. However, the details of what the officials revealed have not been made public. The Commission sought information about the loans taken for the project and how the budget approvals and payments were managed.
It appears that the officials did not provide clear answers to the Commission. They explained that the government’s audit process differed from that of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), leading to different interpretations of audit reports. When asked about the CAG report, the officials gave unclear and unconvincing responses.
The accounts officers mentioned that they attended meetings with the CAG alongside the Special Chief Secretary to Finance, Engineer-in-Chief, and other senior engineers. They stated that their role was limited to executing the government’s decisions and that they had no authority to seek detailed information about loans and other financial matters.
The Commission also recorded the statements of several key officials, including the Chief Accounts Officer of Kaleshwaram Corporation, Appa Rao, the Chief Accounts Officer of the Irrigation wing, Padmavathi, and Project Works Director, Phanibhushan Sharma. These officials provided insights into how funds for the Kaleshwaram project were managed, including loans from external agencies and repayment of those loans during the BRS regime.
Chief Accounts Officer Appa Rao explained that the Kaleshwaram Corporation was set up to take loans from financial institutions and pay contractors. He mentioned that the corporation deposited these funds as Fixed Deposits (FD) in banks and used the interest earned. Rao also noted that the project did not generate significant income on its own, except for a small amount from supplying water to NTPC and Ramagundam Fertilizer Factory. He added that the loans taken for the project were not shown in the budget.
The accounts officers remained silent when asked about the financial burden on the state from the loans. They stated that it was not their responsibility to analyze the state’s debt burden, nor were they qualified to address such matters raised by the Commission during the inquiry.
