Para 3.8.27 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.27 In almost all schemes, accountability procedures and levels ultimately responsible for planning, sanction, execution and overall results (performance) at different stages are not defined at all or only inadequately defined. In the result, most of the programme managers at the grass-root and middle levels function without being accountable for their performance and for achieving the stated objectives. Absence of accountability levels and procedures in the schemes reviewed should be highlighted and linked to the shortcomings and deficiencies commented upon in the Draft Review. As far as possible, appropriate recommendations should also be included for establishing or strengthening accountability procedures.
- Establishment expenditure
What This Means
Most government schemes either lack accountability procedures entirely or have them only partially defined. As a result, programme managers at ground level and middle management often function without being answerable for their performance or for achieving stated objectives. Performance audit should highlight the absence of accountability levels and procedures in the schemes reviewed, link this absence to specific shortcomings and deficiencies found, and include recommendations for establishing or strengthening accountability mechanisms.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Accountability procedures are absent or inadequately defined in most schemes
- 2Programme managers at grass-root and middle levels often function without accountability
- 3Absence of accountability must be highlighted and linked to specific deficiencies
- 4Recommendations for establishing accountability procedures should be included
- 5Accountability levels for planning, sanction, execution, and performance must be defined
Practical Example
During a review of a skill development scheme, the audit team finds that Block Development Officers manage training centres but have no defined targets, no performance reviews, and no consequences for poor results. When the team discovers that 70% of trained youth could not find employment (against a 60% placement target), they link this failure to the absence of accountability at the BDO level — nobody was responsible for ensuring placements after training. The review recommends defining performance targets for each level and annual performance reviews tied to scheme outcomes.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'accountability at different stages' mean?▼
How should the absence of accountability be linked to deficiencies?▼
Is recommending accountability procedures within audit's mandate?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.