Para 2.2.23 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
2.2.23 Audit in relation to regularity of expenditure is of a quasi-judicial character. It involves interpretation of the Constitution, Statutes, rules and orders with reference to the case law of previous decisions and precedents. The Comptroller and Auditor General has not, however, save in the case of rules made by himself, the final power of interpretation;
this resides in the authority specified in the Constitution or the Authority which is the author of the rule or order so long as the interpretation is not against the orders of a superior authority or contrary to any established financial principle or rule. Interpretation by Audit should be based on the plain meaning of the Article of the Constitution, Section of the Statute, rule or order, except where this is inconsistent with another Article, Section, rule or order; in such a case the inconsistency should be referred to the competent authority for resolution or removal.
What This Means
Regularity audit is quasi-judicial in nature because it involves interpreting the Constitution, statutes, and rules. However, the CAG does not have the final power of interpretation (except for rules made by the CAG). The final interpretation rests with the authority specified in the Constitution or the authority that authored the rule -- provided that interpretation does not conflict with a superior authority's orders or established financial principles. When audit encounters inconsistencies between rules, it should refer the matter to the competent authority for resolution.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Regularity audit is quasi-judicial, involving legal interpretation
- 2CAG does not have final power of interpretation (except for CAG's own rules)
- 3Final interpretation rests with the rule-making authority
- 4Interpretation must not conflict with superior authority orders or financial principles
- 5Inconsistencies between rules should be referred to competent authority
Practical Example
An auditor finds that a department has interpreted a leave rule to allow encashment beyond the usual limits. The department insists its interpretation is correct. The AG notes that while the department's interpretation is plausible, it conflicts with the Finance Ministry's general instructions. Since the Finance Ministry is the superior authority, the AG raises the objection and asks the department to obtain clarification from the Finance Ministry.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who has the final say on interpreting financial rules?▼
What should auditors do when two rules appear to conflict?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.