Para 3.2.17 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.2.17 In the majority of cases, countersignature of bills by the Controlling Officer is necessary. This requirement does not, however, dispense with the necessity for formal audit with reference to the rates and general conditions. Ordinarily, the countersignature by the proper authority, or the signature of the drawing officer when a bill does not require countersignature, should be accepted as final evidence of the correctness of the facts of the journey on which the claim is based, and of the Controlling or the Drawing Officer, as the case may be, having exercised the scrutiny entrusted to him under the rules
of the Government. Occasionally, a test check should be undertaken to verify that bills have been scrutinised properly by these officers.
What This Means
In most cases, TA bills require countersignature by the Controlling Officer. This countersignature, or the drawing officer's signature when countersignature is not required, is normally accepted as proof that the journey facts are correct and that proper scrutiny has been done. However, the countersignature does not replace the need for formal audit to check that rates and general conditions are correctly applied. Auditors should also conduct occasional test checks to verify that bills have been properly scrutinized by these officers.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Most TA bills require countersignature by the Controlling Officer
- 2Countersignature accepted as evidence of journey correctness and proper scrutiny
- 3Countersignature does not dispense with formal audit of rates and conditions
- 4Drawing officer's signature suffices where countersignature is not required
- 5Occasional test checks should verify that scrutiny by officers is genuine
Practical Example
An auditor accepts the Controlling Officer's countersignature on routine TA bills as evidence that the journeys were genuine. However, during a periodic test check, the auditor picks a sample of 20 bills and cross-verifies journey details with attendance registers and meeting records at destination offices. The test check reveals that in 3 cases, the officer was marked present at headquarters on dates they claimed to be on tour, indicating inadequate scrutiny by the Controlling Officer.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Controlling Officer's countersignature conclusive proof?▼
What does 'formal audit with reference to rates and general conditions' mean?▼
How often should test checks of TA bills be conducted?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.