Para 3.8.33 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.33 The third person active voice should be adopted in the Review as far as possible unless the use of passive voice is inescapable at some places. The drafting should be simple, precise and crisp. All opinions and comments of Audit included in the Review should be supported by substantive evidence.
What This Means
Audit review reports should be written in third person active voice wherever possible, using passive voice only when absolutely necessary. The language should be simple, precise, and crisp -- avoiding lengthy or complicated sentences. Every opinion or comment made by the auditors in the review must be backed by solid evidence.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Use third person active voice as the default writing style
- 2Passive voice should only be used when active voice is not feasible
- 3Drafting must be simple, precise, and crisp
- 4All audit opinions and comments must be supported by substantive evidence
- 5Avoid vague or unsupported statements
Practical Example
Instead of writing 'It was observed that funds were not utilised properly' (passive, vague), the auditor writes 'The District Collector, Raichur, diverted Rs 45 lakhs from the MGNREGA scheme to construct a district office building in March 2025, violating paragraph 12 of the scheme guidelines.' This version is active voice, specific, and evidence-backed.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the MSO prefer active voice over passive voice?▼
What counts as substantive evidence for audit opinions?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.