ACC has investigated an issue addressed in the 2011 Audit Report (Number: SPE-2014-06) claiming that Works Corporation Limited has acted in contradiction to the company policies while awarding the job promotion to the employee, ACC concluded the case as follows:<\/p>\n
Upon investigation, it was found that an employee who was a Procurement Officer (Level 3, Band 2) from 5th<\/sup> October 2009, was promoted to Deputy Manager (Level 4, Band 4) on 1st<\/sup> January 2010. In awarding the job promotion, Works Corporation Limited has acted in contradiction to the company policy of \u2018Employment Benefits and Salary Policies\u2019 under section 2.8.<\/p>\n Moreover, employee who was promoted as a Deputy Manager (Level 4, Band 4) was awarded the job promotion under the new formulation of the company structure which was formulated on 29th<\/sup> December 2009, in which the Project Monitoring Unit was formulated under the company\u2019s Article of Association\u2019s section 37. It states that the employee should be promoted to Project Monitoring Unit Manager and this decision was taken by the Managing Director, company board member and executive director of Works Corporation Limited in order to strengthen the company\u2019s policies and procedures. Additionally, the investigation revealed that the Deputy Manager was awarded the job based on the applicant\u2019s capacity, skills and experience which was needed to do the job.<\/p>\n Thereby, the investigation did not reveal any contravention with the law number 2\/2000 (Prevention and Prohibition of Corruption Act), in the awarding job promotion to the Works Corporation Limited employee. Hence, the case was concluded under section 25 (a) (1) of law number 13\/2008 (Anti-Corruption Commission Act), as there was no offence of corruption in the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ACC has investigated an issue addressed in the 2011 Audit Report (Number: SPE-2014-06) claiming that Works Corporation Limited has acted in contradiction to the company policies while awarding the job promotion to the employee, ACC concluded the case as follows: Upon investigation, it was found that an employee who was a Procurement Officer (Level 3, [Read More…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":368,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[30],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1483"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1483"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1484,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1483\/revisions\/1484"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.acc.gov.mv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}