Para 3.3 - Financial Prudence | KartavyaDesk
Original Rule Text
subordinate disbursing officers. Among the principles on which emphasis is generally laid are the following: - i) Every officer is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money. ii) The expenditure should not be prima facie more than the occasion demands. iii) No authority should exercise its powers of sanctioning expenditure to pass an order which will be directly or indirectly to its own advantage. iv) Expenditure from public moneys should not be incurred for the benefit of a particular person or a section of the people, unless —
What This Means
Para 3.3 of the Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services emphasizes the principles of financial prudence and integrity that every government officer must uphold when dealing with public funds. It essentially states that officers should treat public money with the same care and diligence they would their own. This means being vigilant about spending, ensuring that expenditures are reasonable and necessary, and avoiding any actions that could lead to personal gain or favoritism. The rule applies to all government officers, especially those with disbursing responsibilities, and aims to ensure transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in all financial transactions.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- •Exercise the same vigilance with public funds as you would with your own money.
- •Ensure expenditure is proportionate to the need and not excessive.
- •Avoid sanctioning expenditures that directly or indirectly benefit yourself.
- •Public funds should not be used for the benefit of specific individuals or groups, unless explicitly justified.
- •This rule applies to all government officers, especially disbursing officers.
Practical Example
Mr. Sharma, a Section Officer in the Ministry of Rural Development, is tasked with approving a consultancy contract for a rural electrification project. One of the bidders, 'Bright Solutions,' is owned by a distant relative. While 'Bright Solutions' submitted a competitive bid, Mr. Sharma must be extra cautious. He needs to ensure the selection process is transparent, the bid is thoroughly evaluated based on merit, and there's no undue influence. If he approves the contract solely based on the familial connection, he violates Para 3.3. Similarly, if the project requires a consultant with expertise costing around ₹5 lakhs, but Mr. Sharma approves a ₹10 lakh contract without justification, he is also in violation.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'vigilance' mean in the context of this rule?▼
Does this rule prevent me from ever approving a contract for a company owned by a relative?▼
What are the consequences of violating Para 3.3?▼
How do I ensure compliance with this rule?▼
Is this rule only for officers directly handling funds?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Test Your Knowledge
Question 1 of 3
According to Para 3.3 of the Manual for Procurement of Consultancy Services, what level of vigilance should a government officer exercise when spending public money?
Related Rules
Need help understanding this rule?
Ask Niti — your AI assistant for Consultancy Manual and other government rules