D.O.N.T.'s reply to the Audit Query which is Appendix 1 of Ctte. 's Report.
Accountant General.
Reference your Memo D/10/3 of the 19th of May, forwarding a memorandum dated the 12th of May from the Director of Audit, as you know, on the day following the Director's query, one of my Shroff's disappeared with a lot of money, leaving the accounts in considerable confusion. I understand that the Committee of Inquiry appointed to investiage this matter is reporting, or has reported.
My comments, item by item, are as follows.
1. Imprest
-
$700.
56
2.
(i) No comment.
(ii) No comment.
(iii) An Imprest Cash Book is now kept.
(iv) If I am not to charge small suns like these to
"Incidentals", I should be glad to know where I am to charge them, In this case I had a ticklish meeting with Representatives of the Golf Club on one side and Representatives of the villages bordering on the course on the other, and had to try to persuade these villages to keep their cows from grazing on the course. case like this it is obviously proper to give the gentlemen concerned tea and cigarettes, and the sum
In a
involved being so small, it was not considered appropriate to apply in advance for Hon. F. S. 's authority in accordance with the relevant Circular.
Revenue.
(i) Failure to supervise (missing) Shroff.
(ii) (a) Failure to supervise (missing) Shroff.
(b) Cheque for $100 signed by me in favour of "cash"
was exchanged for $100 cash received. My practice now is to make out crossed cheques in favour of "Hong Kong Government".
Treasury Voucher Cash Book.
3.
(i)
Correct.
(ii)
Was correct, with the unimportant difference that we received from the Treasury, not cash, but an uncrossed cheque. As I now have a bank account, no serious loop- holes remain here, though compliance with the General Orders concerned is not altogether easy for this Department, because Depositors often live a long way away, and are hard to get lå of, so that long intervals may elapse between the time Treasury gives me its cheque against my voucher, and the time taken by me to complete all payments payable under that voucher.
(iii) Failure to supervise (missing) Shroff.
(iv) As regards Treasury Voucher 1623, the story, which
reveals unorthodox procedure, is as follows. This sum was due to the village of Ta Ho Tun, Saikung District, for the construction of a well, built with money (this $700) awarded to that village for loyalty to the Allied cause. The D.O. South had inspected the well, and satisfied himself that payment was due, so he gave orders for the Treasury voucher to be made out. A week late the Village Representative