Millions of Pathivara Temple’s funds found embezzled

By Prem Adhikari,Pashupatinagar, Sept. 24:Approximately Rs. 8.8 million, which was collected from the Bahini Pathivara Temple, located in Kattadanda in Rong Rural Municipality of Ilam district, has been discovered to have been embezzled. An investigation carried out by the Rong Rural Municipality has unveiled this embezzlement.

The District Administration Office (DAO) had also previously conducted an investigation and prepared a report, but it has not been made public to date. Consequently, Rong Rural Municipality initiated an independent investigation into potential embezzlement at the temple, revealing the embezzlement of Rs. 8,886,000 from the fund.

Following an investigation based on receipts and activities during a period when proper accounting was not maintained, the rural municipality's study team uncovered that the old Pathivara Conservation Committee allegedly embezzled funds amounting to Rs. 8.8 million from the temple.

From October 8, 2018, to February 12, 2023, the temple generated Rs. 31.4 million in income and incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 22.2 million. However, during this period, there is a balance of Rs. 1.7 million in the committee's bank account, leaving a discrepancy of Rs. 8.8 million, which remains unaccounted for.

Prajjwal Adhikari, a chartered accountant who was involved in the investigation team, mentioned that if all the bills are thoroughly examined for reimbursement, the embezzled amount could potentially increase beyond its current estimate.

The embezzled amount was estimated by reviewing the bills and receipts submitted by the committee.

The old committee conducted an audit of the temple's income and expenses up to the financial year 2020/21. Additionally, it has been discovered that the committee's registration has not been renewed for a long time.

As per the study report published by the rural municipality, a review of accounts spanning five financial years has indicated that payments amounting to Rs. 151,000 from estimated bills, Rs. 50,000 from unidentified bills, Rs. 17,000 from bank vouchers, and Rs. 6,000 from applications cannot be regarded as officially recorded or properly documented expenses, said Adhikari.

Adhikari explained that payments were recorded under the construction title during certain fiscal years, even though no construction work was undertaken in those specific 

financial years.

An amount of Rs. 769,000 was listed as construction expenditure in the financial year 2022/23 but no actual construction occurred during that year.

Additionally, a payment of Rs. 570,000 made as reimbursement in the same year is also considered unofficial.

Adhikari, who represented the Rong Rural Municipality in the committee established by the DAO Ilam, pointed out that while the figures in the investigation report prepared by the committee and the study report published by the rural municipality are the same, there is a difference in the language used.

Although the committee submitted its report to Chief District Officer (CDO) Shrawan Kumar Pokhrel on September 17, he is reluctant to make the report public. Local residents have been urging the municipality to publicly disclose the findings and uncover the truth.

Chairman of Rong Rural Municipality Mani Kumar Syangbo said the report intentionally has not been disclosed by CDO Pokharel.

He explained, "Since the DAO did not release the investigation report, we were compelled to publish the study report. We have addressed the questions that have arisen, but it's important to note that our study report cannot impose penalties on those involved in the fraud."

He further added that despite the municipality's formal request for the report, the CDO did not provide it.

Chairman Syangbo warned, "If the CDO continue to hide the report, the local residents of the municipality will take it upon themselves to retrieve it."

He also explained that CDO Pokharel mistreated the people’s representatives, who were sent as a representative of the investigation committee of the rural municipality.

Vice Chairman of the rural municipality Bishnu Maya Khawas suggested that the CDO had kept the report confidential due to external pressure.

The investigation committee, led by Assistant Chief District Officer Dhruv Prasad Koirala, was established on June 6 with a 25-day deadline.

However, it took about three months for the committee to prepare the report, which was subsequently 

submitted to the CDO.