Para 3.8.15 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.15 The review should commence with an in-depth study of the expenditure finance proposals in the offices of the administrative departments and heads of departments concerned. The following aspects will need the special attention of Audit:
(i) Extent to which the objectives of the project/scheme have been clearly defined and are in conformity with the policies and decisions of Government.
(ii) Whether the schemes/programmes have been formulated in accordance with these objectives and are being implemented based on specific and well-defined procedures and whether appropriate structures and systems are in place to enforce accountability.
(iii) Whether sound management information and monitoring systems are available for collection of reliable data and evaluation of implementation and progress and the extent to which the data is effectively utilised to bring about improvements or remedy deficiencies with utmost expedition.
(iv) Adequacy and relevance of the internal control mechanisms for effective control over various areas of implementation and prevention of leakages, losses, avoidable and wasteful expenditure etc.
(v) Availability of specified performance indicators. If these are not in existence, the procedures followed or yardsticks/norms adopted to assess the performance of the project/scheme and their validity.
What This Means
The review should begin with an in-depth study at the administrative department and head of department offices, examining expenditure proposals. Five key areas require special attention: clarity and alignment of project objectives with government policies, whether implementation follows defined procedures with accountability structures, availability and use of management information and monitoring systems, adequacy of internal controls to prevent waste and leakage, and existence of performance indicators or alternative yardsticks for measuring progress.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Review starts at the administrative department and head of department level
- 2Project objectives must be clearly defined and aligned with government policy
- 3Implementation must follow specific procedures with accountability structures
- 4Management information systems must be reliable and effectively utilized
- 5Internal controls must prevent leakages, losses, and wasteful expenditure
- 6Performance indicators must exist or alternative assessment norms must be identified
Practical Example
An audit team reviewing a state health insurance scheme begins at the Health Department secretariat. They examine whether the scheme's objectives align with the National Health Policy. They find the department has a monitoring system that collects data from hospitals but the data is three months old and never analyzed. Internal controls are weak — there is no mechanism to cross-verify patient claims. No performance indicators were ever defined, so the team develops proxy indicators like cost per claim, claim rejection rate, and beneficiary coverage percentage to assess the scheme's performance.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why start at the administrative department rather than field offices?▼
What if no performance indicators exist for a scheme?▼
What does 'accountability structures' mean in this context?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.