Para 2.2.4 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
2.2.4 In its wider connotation, irregularity in expenditure should be deemed to include expenditure incurred on an object without achieving the result expected from it, or in other words, expenditure not incurred effectively. "Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness Audit" of expenditure, with a view to ascertaining whether various programmes and schemes are being implemented economically and efficiently and are actually yielding the results expected of them, has assumed great importance. Besides, every Ministry/Department of Government is mandated to render certain services to the people. Hence, Integrated Audit or Comprehensive Audit of functioning of Ministries/Departments has also assumed utmost importance for the purpose of evaluating the extent to which a particular Government Department is rendering services to the people in terms of its mandate.
# Responsibility for scrutiny of Rules and Orders
What This Means
Irregularity in government expenditure goes beyond just rule violations. It also includes spending money without achieving the intended results, meaning expenditure that is not effective. Modern audit now emphasizes Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness (the 3 Es) to check whether government programmes deliver value for money. Additionally, Integrated or Comprehensive Audit evaluates whether entire Ministries and Departments are fulfilling their mandate to serve citizens.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Irregularity includes expenditure that fails to achieve its expected results
- 2Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness (3E) audit has assumed great importance
- 3Integrated/Comprehensive Audit evaluates entire Ministries against their service mandate
- 4Every Ministry is mandated to render specific services to the people
- 5Audit scope extends beyond rule compliance to outcome assessment
Practical Example
A state government spent Rs 200 crore on constructing primary health centres under a national scheme. While all financial rules were followed and sanctions were proper, audit finds that 40% of the centres remain non-functional due to lack of staff and equipment. Under this para, the auditor can flag this as ineffective expenditure even though no procedural irregularity occurred.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between regularity audit and 3E audit?▼
What is Integrated Audit of a Ministry/Department?▼
Can audit comment on policy decisions under this provision?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.