Documents ... an incident of corruption in the Veterinary Medicine Directorate in Aswan

the Constitution

Al-Rashidi Khaled Wednesday 26 April 2017

In a unique episode of its kind, from the episodes of the scenario of corruption and waste of public money and items full of questions within government institutions, specifically in the Directorate of Veterinary Medicine in Aswan Governorate.
The Director General of the Directorate {[5]} issued Administrative Decision No. 3 instructing “Mohamed A.A.”, a chief technician with a general director rank, to supervise services and products, until the end of the scheduled day, in exchange for transfers, at a value of 20 pounds per day.
Al-Dustour obtained a document revealing a grave breach of the nature of the decision.
The document showed that a chief technician with the rank of general manager gets 25 pounds at a rate of 775 per month, the value of "taxi" wages, for transfers from his home to the Veterinary Medicine Directorate, although the aforementioned decision includes overseeing the services and outcomes of job duties, in addition to the specified value. 20 The uncovered document reflected 25 pounds, and the decision caused an uproar of confusion and questions that did not dry up from its tongues working inside the corridors of the directorate.
A veterinary medical source, who preferred not to be named, said that the incident under the clause "taxi" violates the law in an unprecedented way, indicating that the means of transportation are, for example, tasks, visits of senior officials, or known tasks, adding that the aforementioned employee is his home He is only 50 meters away from the directorate, and as an employee in the state, he is not entitled to daily taxi fees to transport him from his home to his job site, at a value of 775 per month.
The source called - through “Al-Dustour” - the supervisory authorities to examine the incident, especially looking for the employee’s validity, in obtaining an item related to “taxis” from his home to his workplace, saying, “We did not hear about that clause specifically for people with special disabilities or the elderly.”

 

Copy shortlink

Topics

Share !

Featured

Related Content

Menu