The Delhi Government had constructed six bungalows for its ministers. They are lying unoccupied for last three years. This would be a matter of concern for-
|a) Propriety Auditor|
b) Performance Auditor
c) Financial Auditor
d) None of the above
The Correct Answer Is:
d) None of the above
Correct Answer Explanation: d) None of the above
The correct answer is (d) None of the above. The situation described does not directly fall under the purview of a propriety auditor, performance auditor, or financial auditor, but rather raises broader concerns related to governance and administrative decisions.
Firstly, a propriety auditor typically examines whether government actions and decisions align with established rules and ethical standards. In this case, the construction of the bungalows may not necessarily violate propriety, as building accommodations for ministers is a common practice.
However, the concern arises from the fact that these bungalows have remained unoccupied for the last three years, raising questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the government’s decision.
Secondly, a performance auditor focuses on assessing whether government programs and activities are achieving their intended objectives. While the construction of ministerial bungalows could be considered a government activity, the issue here is not directly related to the performance of a specific program.
Rather, it highlights a lapse in planning and execution, as the constructed bungalows are not being utilized as intended.
Thirdly, a financial auditor examines financial records and transactions to ensure accuracy, legality, and compliance with financial regulations. The construction of the bungalows may have undergone financial scrutiny during the budgeting and expenditure phases.
However, the concern now lies in the subsequent lack of utilization, which may not be immediately apparent in financial audits.
The more pertinent concerns raised by the unoccupied bungalows are related to governance, accountability, and effective resource allocation. The matter underscores the need for a broader examination of administrative decisions, planning processes, and utilization of public resources.
A comprehensive inquiry might involve assessing the decision-making process behind the construction, the reasons for the prolonged vacancy, and the potential impact on public funds and resources.
In conclusion, while the described situation may not directly align with the specific responsibilities of a propriety auditor, performance auditor, or financial auditor, it does warrant attention from a governance and administrative perspective.
The correct approach would be a holistic review of the decision-making processes and subsequent actions to determine whether there are any lapses in governance that need to be addressed.
Now, let’s explore why the other options are not correct:
a) Propriety Auditor:
As mentioned earlier, a propriety auditor focuses on ensuring that government actions align with established rules and ethical standards. While the construction of the bungalows might not violate propriety, the issue at hand is more about governance and administrative decisions rather than propriety concerns.
b) Performance Auditor:
Performance auditors assess whether government programs and activities are achieving their intended objectives. The unoccupied bungalows do not directly relate to the performance of a specific program but instead highlight inefficiencies in decision-making and resource allocation.
c) Financial Auditor:
Financial auditors examine financial records and transactions for accuracy, legality, and compliance.
While the financial aspects of constructing the bungalows might have been scrutinized during budgeting and expenditure phases, the current concern is more about the lack of utilization and potential implications on public funds, which may not be immediately apparent in financial audits.