ISLAMABAD - The Public Accounts Committee, in its next sitting will discuss the twelve years old case involving misappropriation of Rice and Gunny bags by an agent which resulted Rs 10.40 million loss to the national exchequer. The case was reported to PAC twelve years ago in 1989 by the Auditor General of Pakistan, which pointed out that officials of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan and their agent were involved in embezzlement of 1,883.9 metric ton of rice worth of Rs 5.84 million, gunny bags worth Rs 4.9 million and wooden dunnage worth of Rs 1.732 million. The PAC in its meeting held on 15 March 1990 directed the Ministry of Commerce to conduct an inquiry and submit the report in this regard. It was amazing that 11 years had passed, however, authorities concerned yet to submit its final report to the PAC. According to the documents available with The Nation, Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan awarded a contract for handling of rice to a firm on 24 October 1979. The same contract was extended from time to time up to 30 June 1983. As per stock report dated 21 August 1981, the book balance of rice with the handling agent was 1,883.9 metric ton worth of Rs 5.84 million, gunny bags 552,597 numbers worth of Rs 4.9 million and wooden dunnage 7,531 pieces worth of Rs 1.732 million. Since there was no movement of stock, same balance stood against handling agent as on 30 June 1983. According to findings of audit, in terms of agreement, the agent failed to render the fortnightly accounts of the above balances for the period from August 1981 to 30 June 1983, the documents revealed. According to the audit report, the management of RCP responsible in misappropriating of stock. The audit claimed that, further no supply order was issued to the agent during the above period. The area officer however reported in February 1984 that against the above book balances, there was no ground balance. The audit further claimed that it was thus evident that the agent had misappropriated the stock worth Rs 12.406 million. After forfeiting his scrutiny deposit (0.975 million) and interest thereon (1.024 million), a balance of 10.407 million still remain outstanding against him which could not be recovered as he had absconded. The reply is not tenable as the management failed to obtain fortnightly account of the balances from the agent and to check them, the audit said. The management of Rice Export Promotion, later on informed that a recovery suit was filed on 13 November 1985 against the agent. After its attention was drawn, the PAC directed that disciplinary action should be initiated against the responsible officers and finalised within three months time and result should be intimated to the committee. After the failure of authorities to produce results within the due time, the PAC, on 19 July 1990, again directed the relevant authorities to take disciplinary action against the officers and report to the PAC within three months. The Ministry, at that time, stated that inquiry was held against two officers and of them, who had retired from service, was held responsible.