Para 3.8.34 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.34 Every statement and comment included in the Review should be specific and vagueness should be eschewed. Statements or comments that are not specific in terms of location, the office involved, the person responsible, etc. would enable to administrative ministry or department either to ignore them or evade furnishing replies on the pretext that the comments not being specific, response is not possible. To cite an example, a
comment such as "in one district due to the negligence of an executive officer misappropriation of Rs 5 lakhs took place" is not specific and does not enable identification of
(i) the district;
(ii) the nature of the negligence that facilitated the misappropriation;
(iii) the person
(s) who misappropriated the amount; etc. The comment does not also facilitate an appreciation of the follow-up action, if any, taken and its current status.
- Use of statistical data
What This Means
Every statement in an audit review must be specific -- naming the exact district, office, and responsible person. Vague comments allow departments to ignore findings or claim they cannot respond because the observation is too general. The report must provide enough detail to enable identification of the location, the nature of the problem, and the people involved.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1All statements and comments in the review must be specific, not vague
- 2Identify the specific location, office, and responsible person
- 3Vague observations enable departments to ignore or evade audit findings
- 4Comments should facilitate follow-up action by identifying who, what, and where
- 5Statistical data should be used to support observations where appropriate
Practical Example
An auditor initially writes: 'In one district, due to negligence of an executive officer, Rs 5 lakhs was misappropriated.' This is rejected as too vague. The revised version reads: 'In Bellary District, the Block Development Officer, Shri X, failed to verify muster rolls for MGNREGA works during April-June 2025, enabling the misappropriation of Rs 5,32,000 by the Junior Engineer through fictitious wage entries. The matter was reported to the district Vigilance Officer on 15 July 2025.'
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is specificity so important in audit reports?▼
What details should every audit observation include?▼
How should statistical data be presented in the review?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.