The C & AG some years ago gave adverse comments on expenditure incurred on buying coffins for soldiers killed in a war. In his opinion the coffins cases imported could have been replace with less expensive domestically produced ones. This is an aspect of –
|a) Audit of sanctions|
b) Audit of stores and stocks
c) Propriety audit
d) Both (b) and (c)
The Correct Answer Is:
d) Both (b) and (c)
The Correct Answer Explanation : d) Both (b) and (c)
This scenario involves aspects of both the audit of stores and stocks (option b) and propriety audit (option c). The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) scrutinized the expenditure on coffins for soldiers killed in a war. The concerns raised by the C&AG revolve around two significant elements:
Audit of Stores and Stocks (Option b):
The C&AG highlighted the discrepancy in the procurement of imported coffins for deceased soldiers. This pertains to the domain of stores and stocks, where government entities or military organizations manage their inventory and procure supplies.
In this case, the issue was the procurement of expensive imported coffins instead of exploring potentially more cost-effective, domestically produced alternatives. The focus here is on the appropriate management of stores and stocks, ensuring efficient utilization of resources without compromising on quality or necessity.
Propriety Audit (Option c):
The concern about the procurement of costly imported coffins also reflects a propriety audit aspect. Propriety audits evaluate the judiciousness, legality, and propriety of expenditures or actions undertaken by a public entity.
In this context, the C&AG’s observation questions the propriety of the decision to opt for expensive imported coffins when more economical, domestically produced ones could have sufficed. It raises questions about the decision-making process, emphasizing the need for prudence and ethical considerations in government spending, especially in sensitive areas like honoring fallen soldiers.
Why Other Options Are Not Correct:
a) Audit of Sanctions:
This option typically involves the assessment of compliance with laws, regulations, or policies governing financial transactions or expenditures. While the situation discussed involves the utilization of funds for purchasing coffins, the primary focus of concern raised by the C&AG does not pertain to the sanctioning of funds itself.
Instead, it highlights the choices made in procurement, aligning more closely with stores and stocks management and propriety in spending rather than the sanctioning process.
b) Audit of Stores and Stocks:
This option does correspond to a significant aspect of the scenario, as discussed earlier. The C&AG’s critique was indeed about the procurement process and the choice of coffins, highlighting the mismanagement or oversight in the utilization of resources and stocks.
However, it’s crucial to recognize that the issue here is not solely limited to managing stocks but also involves ethical and propriety considerations, which are covered under propriety audit.
c) Propriety Audit:
This option directly addresses the ethical and moral considerations associated with the expenditure incurred on buying the coffins. The C&AG’s adverse comments precisely focus on the propriety aspect, questioning the decision-making process regarding the use of funds for imported coffins instead of exploring more economical options.
However, this scenario also involves the mismanagement or oversight in stores and stocks management, making it a combination of both propriety and stores/stocks audit.
In conclusion, while the situation primarily involves the mismanagement in stores and stocks management (option b), it also encompasses the ethical considerations related to expenditure decisions, making it a dual concern that falls under both propriety audit (option c) and the audit of stores and stocks. Hence, the correct answer is indeed d) Both (b) and (c).