Para 7.3.25 — While no rigid formula exists for selecting materi

7.3.25 It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule in regard to the choice of the material to be included in the Reports. Audit Officers will, however, keep in view the following guidelines/principles in processing material for comment in the Reports:

(a) Cases involving transgression of statutory provisions, rules or orders and other cases that have led to or are likely to lead to substantial loss of public money may be mentioned individually. A series of less important irregularities indicative of a common defect in financial control or administration may be commented upon collectively as a system review. Normally, such irregularities should not be considered for comment if adequate remedial action has been taken by the administration. The importance of an irregularity or a case of loss should be judged in the context of the scope and magnitude of a scheme or project and the conditions in which it has been implemented.

(b) Cases that are subjudice or have been referred to arbitration will not be mentioned in such a way as to prejudice the claim or their defence in a

court of law or before an arbitrator. Similarly, care should be exercised in referring to cases in respect of which appellate proceedings are likely to be initiated against decisions of lower courts or arbitration awards.

(c) Reports should not normally include very old cases. Exceptions may be made only in respect of cases that could not have come to the notice of Audit earlier and questions of principle are involved. Cases of lack of response to constructive suggestions of Audit aimed at remedying deficiencies in control systems may be commented upon, if the continuance of the unsatisfactory features is attendant with risk of fraud or loss to Government.

(d) Ordinarily, cases in respect which Government is taking or has promised reasonably adequate action should not be included in the Report, unless there are any special features in a particular case that should be brought to the notice of the Legislature. The instructions contained in paragraph 7.3.23 supra may also be seen in this context.

(e) On certain occasions, it may be necessary for Audit to comment upon the manner in which the administrative authorities had discharged their responsibility of investigating serious irregularities coming to their notice and the adequacy of the remedial action taken by them.

(f) There could be instances where cases scrutinised in audit had also been examined, at some stage, by the Finance Ministry/Department and the administrative ministry or department concerned had not followed the advice given by the former. Such instances could also be mentioned in Audit Report, along with comments, where necessary, on the adequacy of the action taken by the Finance Ministry/Department or the administrative ministry/department.

(f) Matters of a technical nature that have a substantial bearing on the finances of the Government should be gone into carefully. However, before these are included in the Audit Report, the Accountant General should satisfy himself that various documents forming the basis of the audit conclusions have been gone into in depth, the technical aspects studied carefully and the remarks of the Government have been obtained as far as possible. Discussions with the technical officers concerned will also prove useful and facilitate proper appreciation of the issues involved.

(g) While Audit is not precluded from drawing attention to the adequacy or otherwise of the disciplinary action taken in a case, it should not, as a normal rule, criticise decisions of the administrative authorities in regard to the nature or quantum of punishment imposed. On the other hand, it would be appropriate for Audit to offer comments if the disciplinary action taken in a series of cases finalised more or less continuously has obviously been extremely lenient. Similarly, marked differences noticed in the standards of disciplinary action adopted by different government departments may be brought to notice through the Report with adequate supporting evidence. Critical comments regarding the adequacy of disciplinary action should not, however, be conveyed to Government without the approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

What This Means

This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.

Key Points

• 1Cases involving statutory violations or substantial public money loss should be mentioned
• 2Series of minor irregularities indicating systemic defects can be presented as system reviews
• 3Sub-judice cases must not be drafted in a way that prejudices legal proceedings
• 4Very old cases are included only if they raise questions of principle
• 5Cases with adequate government remedial action are generally excluded
• 6Comments on disciplinary action adequacy are permissible but criticism of specific punishments needs CAG approval
• 7Technical matters with financial bearing must be thoroughly studied before inclusion

Practical Example

This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.

Frequently Asked Questions

This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.