Para 3.8.37 — MSO (Audit)
Original Rule Text
3.8.37 Except for the Government, which is an entity with shared responsibilities, all reporting shall be accountability-centred only. There can be no audit point unless the system or the person is faulted and the reporting is specific and positive. It should be borne in mind that individuals are always responsible for the implementation/execution of schemes, programmes, etc., and it is, therefore, incumbent on the auditor to pinpoint the extent of their accountability after issuing the accountability-centred half margin memos containing the audit observations. Accountability is an essential element in good governance and programme evaluation is fundamental to accountability. Evaluation by Audit of the impact of government spending plugs the accountability loopholes and strengthens accountability. Suggestions and recommendations of Audit may also flow in some cases from the results of impact studies. Therefore, results of impact studies undertaken in ECPA may be included clearly and unambiguously under separate and distinct sections in the Review. The criteria adopted for assessing the impact as well as the fact that these criteria had been agreed to by the implementing agency and the Government should be briefly mentioned. However, if no clear conclusions emerge, it would be preferable to exclude the section on impact studies.
# Recommendations/suggestions by Audit
What This Means
All audit reporting must be accountability-centred, meaning every audit observation must clearly identify who or what system is at fault. There can be no valid audit point unless a specific person or system is shown to have failed. Since individuals are responsible for implementing government schemes, auditors must pinpoint their accountability. The results of impact studies conducted during performance audit should also be included in the review under separate sections, with the evaluation criteria clearly stated.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1All reporting must be accountability-centred -- identify who or what system failed
- 2No audit point exists unless a specific fault is identified
- 3Individuals responsible for implementation must have their accountability pinpointed
- 4Impact study results should be included under distinct sections in the review
- 5Evaluation criteria for impact assessment should be agreed upon with the implementing agency
Practical Example
An audit of an irrigation scheme finds that 40% of canal lining work was substandard. The auditor does not just report the deficiency but specifically notes that the Executive Engineer (Irrigation Division, Guntur) failed to conduct the mandatory quality checks prescribed under Clause 36 of the contract, and the Superintending Engineer failed to exercise supervisory oversight, making both individually accountable for the substandard work.
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-centred' reporting mean?▼
What are half margin memos in this context?▼
When should impact study results be excluded from the review?▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.