Para 3.8.25 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.25 A distinction should be made between bonafide negligence or omissions and blatant and deliberate misuse of funds in utter disregard of the principles of propriety. For example, unauthorised utilisation of funds meant for employment generation or food subsidy or for providing assistance to the weaker sections for the purchase of consumer durables, such as vehicles, television sets, etc., or acquisition of buildings for individuals responsible for managing the scheme programme or for use by any other person should be construed as a serious breach of trust reposed in those officers. In all such cases, accountability of those who approved such unauthorised expenditure should be established and appropriate recommendation for action against them included in the review. The subsequent utilisation of such assets should also be ascertained and commented upon.
# Procurement procedures
What This Means
Performance reviews must distinguish between honest mistakes or negligence and deliberate, blatant misuse of funds. When scheme funds meant for employment generation, food subsidy, or assistance to weaker sections are used to buy vehicles, TVs, or buildings for personal use of programme managers, this is a serious breach of trust. In such cases, audit must establish accountability of the officers who approved the unauthorized expenditure and include recommendations for action against them in the review. The subsequent use of assets purchased with misused funds should also be tracked.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Bonafide negligence must be distinguished from deliberate misuse of funds
- 2Using scheme funds for personal consumer durables is a serious breach of trust
- 3Accountability of officers approving unauthorized expenditure must be established
- 4Recommendations for action against responsible officers should be included
- 5Subsequent utilization of assets purchased with misused funds must be tracked
Practical Example
While auditing a food security scheme, the team discovers that the district programme coordinator used Rs 12 lakhs of scheme funds to purchase an SUV and a home theatre system for the district office. The expenditure was approved by the District Collector. The audit team identifies this as deliberate misuse — not negligence — and recommends in the review that the District Collector and programme coordinator be held accountable. They also verify that the SUV is actually being used for official purposes and the home theatre is sitting unused in a storage room.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does audit distinguish negligence from deliberate misuse?▼
What kind of action can be recommended?▼
Why track the 'subsequent utilization' of misused assets?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.