PAC did suggest way to calculate losses due to 2G spectrum allocation: R P Singh

Former CAG official R P Singh on Sunday said the Public Accounts Committee did suggest one of the methodologies to the CAG to calculate the losses due to 2G spectrum allocation, which were pegged at Rs 1.76 lakh crore in its final report.

Dismissing reports that he had gone back on his statement, Singh said after he had given his draft report on the 2G scam in 2010, the PAC under Murli Manohar Joshi, had shown interest in the loss figures and had suggested one of the methodologies that led to calculation of loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore.

He said evidence to this effect was also in a note prepared by R B Sinha, Director General (Report Central) in the CAG.

Singh said the contacts between the CAG and the PAC officials were on even well before the CAG submitted its report on the 2G scam to Parliament in November 2010.

Asked whether he would name Joshi in this context, he said he would not because he personally did not have any documentary evidence.

Earlier, Singh had said that his superiors gave him "written order" following which he signed on the final report on the 2G spectrum allocation which gave a presumptive loss figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore.

Singh, who headed the CAG team that audited the 2G spectrum allocation, maintained that he had never put the figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore in his draft report.

"They (senior CAG officials) told me that this is the final report and asked me through a written order to sign on it. So I followed the instruction and I signed the report," Singh said.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus