There were differences of opinion between auditor-general Gehendra Nath Adhikari and some secretaries at the Public Accounts Committee last Friday when they spoke about beruju (the expenses incurred or advances made without following the rules and regulations and the unsettled accounts of government dues). The secretaries tried to make a case for writing off “very old beruju” accounts. The total beruju stands at Rs. 68.47 billion. They argued that some of the dues were “unrecoverable” because the ministries did not have any records of them and some institutions were no more. Chief secretary Bhoj Raj Ghimire seemed to speak in justification when he contended that beruju is increasing with the size of budget. Two other secretaries called for extra incentives for the civil servants to recover the dues.

The secretaries seem to take an escapist route by not coming out in favour of taking strong measures to recover the dues. Nobody holds anybody responsible for what they have not done. But once they are in positions which demand action to reduce or eliminate beruju, it becomes incumbent on them to rise to the occasion, or else climb down to make way for others who can deliver. Some secretaries’ recommendation for special incentives for recovery of beruju demonstrates the height of their irresponsibility as if their present positions, salaries and perks were only for signing the attendance register. The current state of government service delivery speaks volumes for such an attitude of our top civil servants.

It is the civil servants’ duty to recover the government dues, which are the taxpayers’ money literally lifted by somebody else. But before writing off any beruju account, it has to be made certain that all reasonable measures have been taken, that all of them have proved ineffective and that the beruju concerned is too old to merit a write-off. A-G Adhikari is, rightly, against writing off all beruju as Rs.26 billion belongs to a period within three years alone. But any write-off should not mean the future abandonment of efforts at recovery. By telling the secretaries that strong action would recover 80 per cent of the dues, A-G Adhikari stressed the lack of government initiative. The beruju has kept rising because secretaries, departmental and office heads, and accountants have not been made to account for their failure to contain it. If an inquiry were conducted into the matter to pin down responsibility, one cannot be sure that all of the current top bureaucrats would get a clean chit. The huge beruju owes no less to the practice of successive governments to reward even those civil servants who were responsible for the rise. The government could recover the bulk of the taxpayers’ money if it took strong suitable actions against civil servants and outsiders responsible — including denial of opportunity such as promotion or prized postings or of doing business with the government. Who will cough up the money if failure to do so does not invite severe punishment?