Para 3.8.19 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.19 A review is not a narration of instances of aberrations/shortcomings in the execution of the programme but is an ‘appraisal’ intended for expressing an ‘opinion’ on the quality of internal controls and information systems, achievement of objectives, quality of execution and expenditure and realisation of value for money. A specific pattern of shortcomings noticed in the course of this appraisal should lead to the audit opinion. Expression of opinion is possible only when the audit examination and evaluation are carried out with a view to establishing the pattern. Isolated and sporadic instances of aberrations do not support an opinion. Accountants General and Principal Audit Officers will give due importance to the audit of functions for which the State Government Departments and the Ministry at the Centre are responsible and formulate specific comments on the quality of planning and utilisation of resources, organisational arrangements, monitoring mechanisms, reporting, supervision and direction, etc. after a thorough examination of the documents over the period under review and after obtaining replies to specific and detailed audit observations issued for the purpose.
- Defining the Sample
What This Means
A performance review is not merely a list of individual errors or shortcomings — it is an appraisal that expresses an audit opinion on internal controls quality, objective achievement, execution quality, expenditure value, and value for money. The opinion must be based on a pattern of findings, not isolated instances. Isolated aberrations do not support a broader opinion. Accountants General must focus on planning quality, resource utilization, organizational arrangements, monitoring mechanisms, and supervision, based on thorough document examination and departmental responses to specific audit observations.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1A review is an appraisal expressing an audit opinion, not just a list of shortcomings
- 2Findings must show a specific pattern to support the audit opinion
- 3Isolated or sporadic instances alone do not support conclusions
- 4Focus should be on planning quality, resource utilization, monitoring, and supervision
- 5Opinions must be formed after thorough examination and obtaining departmental replies
Practical Example
An audit team reviewing a state watershed management programme finds one case of fund misuse in one district. Rather than building the review around this single case, they examine all 12 sampled districts and find a systematic pattern: in 9 out of 12 districts, funds released for watershed treatment were diverted to road construction. This pattern of fund diversion supports an audit opinion that the programme's financial management is weak and internal controls are inadequate — a much stronger conclusion than citing one isolated case.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can't isolated instances support an audit opinion?▼
What is the difference between 'narration of instances' and 'appraisal'?▼
How should departmental replies be used?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.