The audit of government expenditure is one of the major components of government audit. The basic standards set for audit of expenditure are to ensure that there is provision funds authorised by competent authority fixing the limits within which expenditure can be incurred. These standards are :—
- that the expenditure incurred conforms to the relevant provisions of the statutory enactment and in accordance with the Financial Rules and Regulations framed by the competent authority. Such an audit is called as the audit against ‘rules and orders’.
- that there is sanction, either special or general, accorded by competent authority authorising the expenditure. Such an audit is called as the audit of sanctions.
- that there is a provision of funds out of which expenditure can be incurred and the same has been authorised by competent authority. Such an audit is called as audit against provision of funds.
- that the expenditure is incurred with due regard to broad and general principles of financial propriety. Such an audit is also called as propriety audit.
- that the various programmes, schemes and projects where large financial expenditure has been incurred or being run economically and are yielding results expected of them. Such an audit is termed as the performance audit.
Each of the above audits is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
1. Audit against Rules & Orders – Audit against rules and orders aims to ensure that the expenditure conforms to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and of the laws and rules made thereunder. It also seeks to satisfy that the expenditure is in accordance with the financial rules, regulations and orders issued by a competent authority. These rules, regulations and orders against which regularity audit is conducted mainly fall under the following categories :
- Rules and orders regulating the powers to incur and sanction expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India or of a State (and the Contingency Fund of India or of a State);
- Rules and orders dealing with the mode of presentation of claims against government, withdrawing moneys from the Consolidated Fund, Contingency Fund and Public Accounts of the Government of the India and of the States, and in general the financial rules prescribing the detailed procedure to be followed by government servants in dealing with government transactions; and
- Rules and orders regulating the conditions of service, pay and allowances, and pensions of government servants.
It is the function of the executive government to frame rules, regulations and orders, which are to be observed by its subordinate authorities. The job of audit is to see that these rules, regulations and orders are applied properly by the subordinate authorities. It is, however, not the function of audit to prescribe what such rules, regulations and orders shall be. But, it is the function of audit to carry out examination of the various rules, regulations and orders issued by the executive authorities to see that :
- they are not inconsistent with any provisions of the Constitution or any laws made thereunder;
- they are consistent with the essential requirements of audit and accounts as determined by the C & AG;
- they do not come in conflict with the orders of, or rules made by, any higher authority; and
- in case they have not been separately approved by competent authority, the issuing authority possesses the necessary rule-making power.
Audit of expenditure against regularity is of a quasi-judicial type of work performed by the audit authorities. It involves interpretation of the Constitution, statutes, rules, regulations and orders. The final power of interpretation of these, however, does not vest with the C & AG.
2. Audit of sanctions: The auditor has to ensure that each item of expenditure is covered by a sanction, either general or special, of the competent authority. The audit of sanctions is directed both in respect of ensuring that the expenditure is properly covered by a sanction, and also to satisfy that the authority sanctioning it is competent for the purpose by virtue of the powers vested in it by the provisions of the Constitution and of the law, rules or orders made thereunder, or by the rules of delegation of financial powers made by an authority competent to do so.
3. Audit against provision of funds – Audit against provision of funds aims at ascertaining that the expenditure incurred has been on the purpose for which the grant and appropriation had been provided and that the amount of such expenditure does not exceed the appropriation made.
4. Propriety audit – According to ‘propriety audit’, the auditors try to bring out cases of improper, avoidable, or infructuous expenditure even though the expenditure has been incurred in conformity with the existing rules and regulations. With the passage of time, it was felt that regularity audit alone was
not sufficient to protect properly the public interest in the spending of money by the executive authorities. A transaction may satisfy all the requirements of regularity audit insofar as the various formalities regarding rules and regulations are concerned, but may still be highly wasteful. A building may be constructed for installing a telephone exchange but may not be used for the same purpose resulting in infructuous expenditure or a school building may be constructed but used after five years of its completion a case of avoidable expenditure.
Audit should, therefore, try to secure a reasonably high standard of public financial morality by looking into the wisdom, faithfulness and economy of transactions. These considerations have led to the evolution of audit against propriety which is now being combined by the audit authorities with their
routine function of regularity audit. It is hard to frame any precise rules for regulating the course of audit against propriety. Such an objective of audit depends for its acceptance on its appeal to the common sense and straight logic of the auditors and of those whose financial transactions are subjected to
propriety audit. However, some general principles have been laid down in the Audit Code, which have for long been recognised as standards of financial propriety. Audit against propriety seeks to ensure that expenditure conforms to these principles which have been stated as follows :
1. The expenditure should not be prima facie more than the occasion demands. Every public officer is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money.
2. No authority should exercise its powers of sanctioning expenditure to pass an order which will be directly or indirectly to its own advantage.
3. Public moneys should not be utilised for the benefit of a particular person or section of the community unless :
- the amount of expenditure involved is insignificant; or
- a claim for the amount could be enforced in a Court of law; or
- the expenditure is in pursuance of a recognised policy or custom; andthe amount of allowances, such as travelling allowances, granted to meet expenditure of a particular type should be so regulated that the allowances are not, on the whole, sources of profit to the recipients. It may be stated that it is the responsibility of the executive departments to enforce economy in public expenditure. The function of audit is to bring to the notice of the proper authorities of wastefulness in public administration and cases of improper, avoidable and infructuous expenditure.
5. Performance audit – The scope of audit has been extended to cover efficiency, economy and effectiveness audit or performance audit, or full scope audit. Efficiency audit look into whether the various schemes/projects are executed and their operations conducted economically and whether they are yielding the results expected of them, i.e., the relationship between goods and services produced and resources used to produce them; and examination aimed to find out the extent to which operations are carried out in an economical and efficient manner. Economy audit looks into whether government have acquired the financial, human and physical resources in an economical manner, and whether the sanctioning and spending authorities have observed economy. Effectiveness audit is an appraisal of the performance of programmes, schemes, projects with reference to the overall targeted objectives as well as efficiency of the means adopted for the attainment of the objectives. Efficiency-cum-performance audit, wherever used, is an objective examination of the financial and operational performance of an organisation, programme, authority or function and is oriented towards identifying opportunities for greater economy, and effectiveness. The procedure for conducting performance audit covers identification of topic, preliminary study, planning and execution of audit, and reporting. While the trend towards a comprehensive approach for conducting performance of full scope audit is visible, the coverage and depth of evaluation vary according to the statutory limitations, and the organisational constraints of C & AG.
