Excess ministerial spending going unchecked

It seems rather extraordinary that the revised budget will be passed without having gone through a scrutiny of the public accounts committee (PAC) of the House. This is in contravention with the parliamentary rules of procedures. This practice of expenditure of public money in excess of original allocations, without the obligatory scrutiny by PAC to look into the justification of additional expenditures by ministries and divisions, before being passed as revised budget, has been going on since the rules of procedures were enacted in 1973.
And this time too the passage of the revised budget will be a formality, with the opposition abandoning its duty to the people to ask the government to explain the need for such expenditure, and the natural disinclination of the treasury members to question the rationale of it. And going by the list one is amazed to find that the extra spending by some ministries and offices amounts to more than fifty percent of the original allocation. There is an overall attitude of lax accountability and indiscipline as far as finances are concerned. Post facto-sanction can not only lead to more unplanned expenditure in the future but also result in wastage of public money.
The rules of procedure lay down quite specifically that expenditure in excess of the allotted amount will be examined by the accounts committee which shall make such recommendation as it deems fit. If the procedures have not been followed in the past that means a bad precedent has been set which must be avoided in future.
There is perhaps confusion as to how the provision regarding the said scrutiny will be implemented. Should the PAC, given its responsibility, call for the revised budget on its own, or the Speaker, ensure it is sent to the committee for appraisal? We feel that there is a case for both moving in a proactive manner. But in the ultimate analysis, it should be for the Speaker, as guardian of the House, to ensure that there is no loophole in any function of the parliament.
It bears repetition and reminding that public money is a sacred trust that should be handled most diligently, more so when it comes to the role of public representatives in ensuring accountability.