The sustained growth of public enterprises in India dates from the early years of planning following national independence. The 1956 Industrial Policy Resolution affirmed the objective of a socialist pattern of society and the concomitant need for planned and rapid industrial development to achieve this objective. It proposed that all basic and strategic industries, and public utilities, should be located in the public sector. Public ownership, part or complete, was especially required in those fields where technological considerations fostered the concentration of economic power and wealth. Public enterprises thus came to establish their dominance in basic and strategic industries such as steel, minerals, metals, coal, power, petroleum, chemicals, fertilizers, Pharmaceuticals, heavy engineering, and a substantial presence in industries such as transportation services, agricultural-based products, trading and marketing, and financial services.
Over the last thirty years or more, the growth of public enterprises in India has been phenomenal in terms of investment, production and range of activities. Under the central government, from only 5 enterprises in 1951 public enterprises had grown to 226 (excluding departmental undertakings, insurance, banking and financial institutions) by 1987, employing more than 2 million people. The public sector has spread over all parts of India. Its coverage has extended beyond the basic and heavy industries into light manufacturing, a variety of consumer goods, electronics, high-technology products, construction, consultancy services, and even tourism and hotel industries. The share of the public sector, in terms of gross domestic product, rose from 14.9 per cent in 1970-71 to 25 per cent in 1984-85.
These public enterprises, as instruments of national development, supplement government efforts to promote the social and economic objectives laid down in the national plans. They provide greater flexibility in implementing programmes such as expansion of employment opportunities, balanced regional development, acceleration of the rate of growth of agricultural and industrial production, prevention of concentration of economic power and technological self-sufficiency. Public enterprises have thus become principal instruments of planning in India, occupying commanding heights of the economy, and controlling and directing in a large measure the entire course of national development.
In India, there are four categories of public enterprises, as listed below:
Departmental undertakings come under the jurisdiction of their respective ministries and operate within the administrative framework in the same way as other government departments. They are controlled by chief executives who are government officials. Theirtenure of office and administrative independence are much the same as those of other governmental heads.
The management of corporations and companies is controlled by their boards of directors. Each board has a chief executive assisted in most cases by two or more functional directors, one of whom is generally in charge of finance, and part-time directors. The boards are responsible to administrative ministries and their members are appointed and removed by the government. They function independently but are required to submit performance reports to their parent ministries from time to time. They also cannot incur capital expenditure beyond certain limits, without the concurrence of their respective ministries.
The personnel in departmental undertakings are civil servants recruited on a permanent basis by the Union or State Public Service Commission/Staff Selection Commission. In the case of other public enterprises, posts are either filled by direct recruitment from the open market or by promotions within the undertaking itself or by taking officers from government departments or other public enterprise on secondment. In some specialist areas, recruitment is by contract. Board level appointments to central corporations and companies are made by government on the recommendations of the Public Enterprises Selection Board; all other appointments are considered either at board or management levels.
The salaries and allowances of the officers and staff in public enterprises do not compare favourably with those prevailing in the private sector. Although this disparity has not resulted in any perceptible attrition of qualified staff to the private sector, the public sector has not always been able to attract the best talent. Despite these negative factors, public enterprises have by and large been able to obtain qualified staff at all levels. Various institutions in India offer managerial development programmes and some of the major enterprises such as those in the field of insurance, banking, trading, heavy engineering, petroleum and textiles have their own establishments for meeting training requirements of their officers and staff.
As public enterprises play a crucial role in national development, considerable attention is given to recruitment, training and manpower planning. Emphasis is given to corporate planning, both long-term and short-term, in order to plan the quantity and quality of personnel needed for achieving the objectives of various segments of each enterprise. To ensure that key management posts do not remain vacant for long, a monitoring system exists whereby the managements/boards/ministries keep themselves informed about progress in filling vacancies which fall within their respective authorities.
Departmental undertakings form an integral part of government activities and as such their expenditure is met from the government budget. In contrast, the main source of finance for public sector corporations and government companies, apart from their own income derived from rates, fees and sales, are equity capital, loans and subsidies from the government. Pricing in some vital areas such as steel, fertilizers, and cement, require government approval. Where there is a deficit in operating costs, or where funds are required for development programmes or other specific purposes such as rural electrification or housing, grants or subsidies are obtained from the government in the absence of internal funding.
Departmental undertakings are not permitted to borrow, but other public enterprises may obtain loans from domestic and foreign sources. Government loans may be given to some public enterprises for approved purposes and are required to be repaid within a stipulated time. The government at times allows waiver of interest or sets out soft terms and conditions for repayment of loans, having regard to the nature of the business of the enterprise and the long gestation period of the schemes financed by such loans. Where public enterprises are unable to meet their loan obligations despite rescheduling efforts, governments sometimes have to accept their capital restructuring by conversion of the government loan into equity, because they cannot afford to close down such enterprises.
Surplus funds accumulated by departmental undertakings form part of government funds. With corporations and government companies these surpluses are partly returned to government in the form of dividends and partly retained to meet their future expansion programmes. Though rare, public enterprises which continue to make losses risk being wound up by the Cabinet on the recommendation of their respective ministries.
In the framework of economic planning in India, the policies, investment decisions and programmes for growth and expansion of individual public enterprises have to be co-ordinated with national priorities and the mobilisation and allocation of resources. Even when investment and expenditure decisions of some of these enterprises do not depend on governmental budgetary support, their overall impact on the economy through backward and forward linkages, their decision to buy equipment from indigenous sources or import, and their claim on total economic resources (especially jn the core sector) may be so important as to require their reconciliation with national planning objectives. Similarly, wage and employment policies of different public enterprises with implications for other enterprises and the national economy are subjected to the same overall co-ordination. There are thus a number of areas where the intervention of the government in the management of public enterprises is inevitable in the interests of national planning for this type of economy.
In India, public enterprises in the form of departmental undertakings, e.g. railways, posts and telecommunications, ordnance factories, radio and television, and mints are accountable to their respective administrative ministry and Minister-in-Charge who, in turn, is accountable to the legislature. Similarly, government companies and public corporations are accountable to the legislature through the government represented by the Minister concerned in each case. Thus the responsible Minister, on behalf of the government, has the power to:
The relevant Minister and administrative branch of the ministry concerned are closely involved in the affairs of each public enterprise. The resulting interaction, both regular and critical in nature, is more evident at the informal than formal level. Invariably a senior official of the ministry concerned is on the board of each enterprise to monitor information and convey the ministry's point of view in policy issues and other important matters.
Central agency controls over central public enterprises in India operate as follows:
Flexibility and autonomy in the operations of public enterprises have been achieved through rules and conventions minimising government intervention but, at the same time, recognising the right of government access to necessary information for performance evaluation of individual enterprises. Accordingly the government is primarily concerned with overall strategic planning and policy, rather than with day-to-day functioning of the various public enterprises. The particular ministry is responsible for the formulation of policy, while the management of each public enterprise is responsible for the implementation of that policy. This interaction facilitates the exercise of overall government supervision without impairing the efficiency of the operations of individual enterprises.
In the interests of operating flexibility and autonomy, the Government of India has recently decided that the holding company concept is an appropriate structure for many public enterprises. Some government companies are already functioning as holding companies, such as Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Steel Authority of India, State Trading Corporation of India Limited, and Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited. Arrangements are in hand for the formation of two holding companies in the engineering sector. It has also been decided that the directors of the subsidiaries be appointed by the holding company from a panel of names submitted by the Public Enterprises Selection Board.
Under these holding company arrangements, the government's interface with the public enterprises concerned takes place at the level of the board of the holding company which is responsible for the day-to-day operations of a number of subsidiary companies. The government in turn sets the goals and targets for the holding company and receives periodic performance reports regarding the overall efficiency of the latter's operations. As the administrative responsibility for individual companies is vested in the holding company, the government itself does not come in day-to-day contact with these subsidiaries.
A number of organisational controls have been imposed by the central and state legislatures and governments to ensure that public enterprises are accountable for their operations and the huge investments made in them. A concerted attempt has been made to achieve a balance between delegation and independence on the one hand, and checks and balances on the other. Accordingly, while public enterprises are held responsible for individual performance, operational efficiency has not been impaired in the process.
Most of the boards of public enterprises are concerned predominantly with policy matters and leave day-to-day operations to individual enterprises. However boards retain substantial control over the public enterprises by reserving all policy matters for their approval, establishing systems of power delegation, and defining limits up to which the managing director, general manager and other senior officers can incur expenditure, enter into contracts and undertake other liabilities on behalf of the enterprise. Normally, the following matters require the approval of the board for each enterprise:
Within the rules, guidelines and system of power delegation established by the board, all levels of management contribute towards running the enterprise. The delegation at various levels differs according to the circumstances, depending largely on the personalities involved, the traditions of the enterprise, and the nature of its operations. A conservative top management, for example, may not give sufficient delegation to subordinate authorities, and the decision-making process may thus become inevitably slow and inefficient. In view of this problem, the powers delegated to the boards of public enterprises operated by the central government have been recently increased in an attempt to expedite investment decisions. However investment proposals of a major nature beyond a specified limit are still subject to Cabinet approval after clearance by the Public Investment Board.
Management information systems, some of which are computerised, and reporting systems are generally in existence in various public enterprises to monitor, evaluate and report on their performance. While the reports on the performance of departmental undertakings are made to the responsible ministers on a regular basis, reports on other public enterprises are made to the boards of directors on a monthly, quarterly, half yearly and annual basis. These reports receive adequate scrutiny and attention so that any instructions for remedying particular matters are promptly given.
Very often, the public enterprises have their own internal audit arrangements, whereby they are free to comment on not only the major transactions of the enterprise, but also the systems followed by them.
In all public enterprises a financial director or financial adviser is directly responsible for the internal audit function. His other functions include:
While the chief executive can over-rule the financial adviser, any difference of opinion between them on important matters is specifically required to be brought to the notice of the Board of Directors.
Departmental undertakings are required to maintain their accounts in the form prescribed by the government in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. This standardisation extends to the balance sheet and profit and loss account.
As far as government companies are concerned, the form of the balance sheet is given in the Companies Act itself which also stipulates various requirements regarding preparation of the profit and loss account. These companies are required to follow normal accounting principles. In certain matters, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has also prescribed accounting standards to be followed by companies.
In the case of statutory corporations, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is either the sole or superimposed auditor and the annual statements of accounts, including the profit and loss account and balance sheet, are required to be prepared in such forms as may be prescribed by the government in consultation with him. Similarly, autonomous bodies which are set up as registered societies through government resolutions (such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) generally have provision in their by-laws to the effect that their accounts shall be maintained as prescribed by the government in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Central and state legislatures in India operate a number of effective controls in relation to public enterprises. These controls include the traditional avenues of budget debates, parliamentary questions, call-attention motions, and the discussions of consultative committees.
The legislature has an important reporting function in regard to public enterprises. The ministries concerned are obliged to place before the legislature the annual accounts of the public enterprises controlled by them and to report on the conduct of their operations and other pertinent matters. These reports to the legislature constitute a significant information channel and provide the legislature with a regular flow of timely data on the activities of individual enterprises.
Almost all public enterprises (departmental undertakings, government companies and statutory corporations) are financed initially by grants from the Consolidated Fund of the central or state government involved. When a new public enterprise is to be set up, a 'demand for grant' of its financial requirements is placed before the legislature, thus affording it an opportunity to determine the quantum of investment and the form in which it is proposed to be made. Similarly, when a particular public enterprise seeks further investment in the form of equity or loan from the government, a provision to that extent has to be made in the budget estimates of the relevant administrative ministry which are discussed in the legislature.
The legislature also maintains accountability of public enterprises through parliamentary committees. The main one concerned in this area is the Committee on Public Undertakings which has developed a vigorous role in its oversight of public enterprises, excluding departmental undertakings and enterprises involving banking and finance. In a more general way, the Public Accounts Committee also maintains accountability of public enterprises through its overall role in the financial and accounting affairs of the government. The Committee on Public Undertakings examines the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and other material collected on the functioning of public enterprises, and has the power to make detailed and comprehensive enquiries regarding any or all aspects of their operations. Accordingly the Ministry concerned and/or management of a particular enterprise may have to appear before this committee and answer pertinent and demanding questions. Although investigations by the legislature in the form of parliamentary debates are open to the public in the normal way, sittings of both the Committee on Public Undertakings and Public Accounts Committee are closed proceedings.
Despite the legislature's relatively high profile in the control of public enterprises, policy considerations are the prerogative of the government. Thus the Cabinet is the final arbiter in all major matters of policy such as the granting of loans and subsidies, provision of equity, capital expenditure beyond stipulated limits, schemes for the grouping or re-grouping of public enterprises, and proposals for the flotation of new government companies and corporations.
As the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI), the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is the sole auditor of departmental undertakings. However, the SAI exercises a supervisory and monitoring role in regard to government companies, as private audit firms are appointed as their auditors by the central government on the advice of the SAI.
Under the Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act 1971, the SAI has the authority to issue directions to the auditors of government companies regarding the manner in which each company's accounts is to be audited. Such directions could require the auditors to prepare a supplementary audit report for the SAI (i.e. in addition to the annual audit report submitted to shareholders) on the adequacy and efficiency of significant matters including the accounting system, internal control, cost accounts, inventory management and internal audit. This report is intended to ensure the quality of the auditing firm's performance and to furnish useful data and information for a better appreciation of the financial working of the particular company.
Private audit firms auditing government companies are also required to provide a copy of relevant audit reports to the SAI who has the right to comment on or supplement them as considered necessary. Here broad checks are applied by the SAI to ensure that the companies have followed generally accepted accounting and reporting standards and that the accounts as certified by the private audit firms do in fact represent a true and fair view of the company's financial position and operations. In addition, the SAI has the power to conduct supplementary or test audits independently.
As regards most government corporations established under specific Acts of the legislature, the SAI conducts audits either as sole auditor or superimposed auditor depending on the statutory provisions involved. In the latter alternative, the audit of the SAI is over and above that of the particular private firm appointed to conduct the audit. However, the SAI has no auditing mandate in the case of some bodies such as the Reserve Bank of India and Life Insurance Corporation of India.
The SAI does not act as consultant or advisor to the management of public enterprises. Although not empowered to correct managerial decisions, the SAI may give advice to individual managements - usually through inspection reports - on improving systems and procedures, strengthening internal control and remedying other material matters arising from the examination of the annual financial statements. Where necessary, serious deficiencies are reported to the government and the legislature to enable corrective action to be taken.
There are some autonomous bodies set up as registered societies by government resolution. The audit of such bodies may be undertaken by the SAI if so requested by the central or state government concerned, on mutually acceptable terms.
There are five main types of audits of public enterprises undertaken by the SAI in accordance with authority derived from the Comptroller and Auditor General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act 1971:
Apart from ensuring that the annual accounts of individual enterprises represent a true and fair view of financial performance and operations and are in compliance with statutory and codal provisions, the audit of public enterprises by the SAI extends to considerations of the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which these enterprises operate and fulfil their objectives and goals. The SAI also considers questions of propriety and accordingly examines management decisions in the areas of sales, purchases, contracts and other relevant matters to see whether these have been taken in the best interests of the undertaking and conform with accepted principles of financial conduct.
The general objective of audits of public enterprises, in common with audits of ministerial departments, is to ensure public accountability of their activities. The SAI, by virtue of his public sector auditing mandate, is concerned that the public through the legislature is provided with factual and meaningful information, and that there is full disclosure and accountability for the increasing and diverse operations now conducted by the central and state governments through the medium of public enterprises.
In the audit of government companies, the SAI does not duplicate the work of other auditors - either internal auditors of the organisation itself or external auditors of private audit firms. Instead the SAI conducts an appraisal or efficiency-cum-propriety audit, i.e. whether the enterprises have fulfilled the objectives for which they were established, whether value for money spent has been obtained, whether targets have been achieved as scheduled, whether avoidable delays in construction or production have been encountered, and whether extravagance in expenditure has occurred. All these matters involve a review of the decisions taken by management - including the board of directors - and a comprehensive appraisal of the performance of individual enterprises.
The scope and extent of each audit is determined solely by the SAI. As one of the purposes of setting up non-departmental forms of public enterprise is to give individual managements autonomy and flexibility within the overall control and accountability system to enable enterprises to be run on competitive and commercial lines, the SAI conducts audits so as not to interfere with managerial independence or inhibit decision-making authority. However, the decisions themselves may be subject to audit. In examining the decisions of individual managements, the SAI ensures that these were taken by the competent authority after examination of all aspects (including economic, technological and the public interest) on the basis of all the relevant information available at that time and taking into consideration the various alternatives available to management, and that the decisions were consistent with the aims and objectives of the enterprises concerned.
The public enterprise audit function is seen not only as an instrument of accountability but also as a means to assist the government and enterprise managements to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This expanded purpose is achieved by the detection and disclosure of financial and operating deficiencies, inadequacies, system breakdowns and performance shortfalls, and by the analysis of reasons for the non-attainment of acceptable performance standards. The financial performance of enterprises is linked with their physical performance, with issues relating to the efficient and economic operations and management of resources being discussed and highlighted. The role of public enterprise audit is increasingly perceived as one directed to achieving management improvement.
Although there is no statutory requirement as such, internal audit is a common feature of public enterprises. The work of internal audit within individual enterprises is reviewed by the SAI, with deficiencies and weaknesses reported by the SAI not only to individual managements but also to the responsible ministry and the legislature. In contrast, an efficient and effective system of internal audit may result in the SAI regulating and modifying the extent of his own external audit.
The form of training which internal auditors receive varies according to the enterprise in which they are employed. Generally the internal auditors employed by public enterprise are either members of professional accounting bodies and/ or experienced officers previously in the service of the Supreme Audit Institution. However, the training of internal audit staff for the needs of an individual enterprise is determined by the enterprise itself.
Audit Boards are constituted by the SAI and they work under his supervision and control. Their composition varies from enterprise to enterprise. The Chairman, Audit Board is common to all enterprises selected for appraisal. There are four other members of the Audit Board for each of such enterprises. Two of these members are officers of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department including the Member, Audit Board who has the primary responsibility for the audit and appraisal. Two part-time members are appointed by the ministry responsible administratively for the particular enterprise to be reviewed, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the SAI. Part-time members of Audit Boards are selected according to their technical knowledge, experience and expertise in the area of operation of the enterprise to be reviewed. These part-time members are very closely associated with all stages of the appraisal and are of special assistance in analysing areas where technical knowledge is required.
The system of appraisal by Audit Boards has two distinct advantages. First, expert knowledge is brought to bear on the understanding and analysis of all aspects of the working of the enterprise involved. Secondly, maximum disclosure is made of the particular problems encountered. Appraisals of enterprises are finalised only after discussions with individual managements and ministries. During these discussions, enterprise managements and administrative ministries give their views on the various issues highlighted in the draft appraisals and explain the problems and circumstances under which particular decisions were taken. Operational and other constraints, policies, plans and projects, and other relevant matters are also discussed in detail. Accordingly, the final appraisal reports prepared by the SAI and eventually presented to the legislature are made as objective, balanced and constructive as possible.
The contents of the appraisal reports vary according to the nature, experience and performance of the enterprises reviewed. However, matters which have generally attracted attention from the Audit Boards include:
Apart from government companies, commercial auditors may be appointed for those government corporations established under specific Acts of Parliament, where the enabling legislation sanctions such outside appointments. Here again, the commercial auditing firms are not entirely independent in their audit function, for the SAI - in terms of the legislation - may act as superimposed auditor, i.e. the audit of the SAI may be over and above that of the particular private firm appointed to conduct the normal audit. No public enterprise has the power to dispense with audit by the SAI where statutory provision exists for such an audit, either sole or superimposed.
Originally auditing methods and techniques in the public sector of India were largely confined to the regularity aspects of transactions. This traditional picture changed with the adoption of a systematic planning process for the economy in the 1950s. The resultant increase in the investment of public funds and the proliferation of public enterprises highlighted the need for a system of accountability involving the public sector audit function. Accordingly, a system of external audit had to be developed for the new enterprises which would report not only a true and fair view of the transactions recorded, but assess the efficiency of operations and also locate weaknesses in control systems. Emphasis, therefore, shifted more to scrutiny by the SAI on what became known as the 'proprietary audit'. This system of audit was designed to determine whether the expenditure of the public enterprise being audited had been incurred with 'wisdom, faithfulness and economy'. As a further amplification, the concept of 'efficiency-cum-performance audit' evolved.
The audit methodology employed for public enterprises in India by the SAI now covers three broad aspects: financial statements, systems and performance. In addition, a horizontal study of the overall working results of audited companies and corporations - focused on relevant indicators - is also made. While the horizontal study provides a bird's-eye view of the overall performance of both the central and state government enterprises, the initial coverage highlights weaknesses and inadequacies in the accounting system and procedures of individual enterprises.
In the audit of the financial statements of public enterprises, the records and reports of individual enterprises are relied upon by the SAI for basic procedures such as identifying, counting and evaluating tangible assets. Relevant documentary evidence is test checked with reference to authenticity, appropriateness, authorisation and proper recording. Records are also scanned to isolate transactions or entries which require further examination because they are unusual or peculiar. Suitable sampling methods are applied and reviewed from time to time in the context of the adequacy of internal control systems; characteristics of expenditure; materiality, complexity and volume of transactions; and the results of internal audit.
In those instances where the SAI reviews the work of commercial auditors, broad checks are applied to the balance sheet, profit and loss account, and any other documents certified by them. The review by the SAI is aimed at ensuring that the accounts as certified by the commercial auditors do in fact represent a true and fair view and comply with the provisions of the Companies Act. Any deficiencies detected by the SAI are issued in the form of supplementary comments on the report of the commercial auditors. These comments are required to be presented to the shareholders of the company concerned at the annual general meeting, and also the legislature. In view of this exposure through supplementary comments, it is not unusual for the final accounts of audited companies to be altered before certification in the interests of uniformity and full disclosure.
As regards performance auditing, the actual areas covered by the SAI vary according to the nature, objectives and operations of the particular enterprise concerned. In many cases these areas include investment decisions; project formulation and management; delegation of powers and management information systems, organisational effectiveness; capacity utilisation; management of equipment, plant and machinery; production performance; use of materials; productivity of labour; idle capacity; cost and prices; development of complementary and ancillary small scale industries; materials management; sales and credit control; and budgetary and internal control systems.
Performance auditing in many cases is expanded to comprehensive audit appraisals of efficiency and effectiveness, this wider evaluation of public enterprises is determined by the SAI in accordance with certain criteria, as discussed below:
Specific guidelines are issued by the SAI for the audit of public enterprises. These are published in the Manual of Commercial Audit Procedures. Part I of the Manual contains general guidelines, while Part II is maintained by each regional office and contains specific guidelines for individual enterprises. Guidelines for appraisal reports are also prepared by the SAI before appraisal audits are undertaken.
Although all audits are centrally controlled through SAI headquarters, the various aspects of organisational management - including the annual programming of audits and the planning of individual audits - are administered through regional offices of the SAI which maintain detailed planning data on the public enterprises subject to audit in each region. Depending on the nature of each enterprise, the magnitude of transactions, the type of documents to be audited and the periodicity of each audit, the number of days to be spent by individual audit teams on each audit is determined by the regional office. The annual local audit programme is then drawn up by each regional office to incorporate these allotted time limits.
The determination of annual audit programmes at the macro level is followed by the planning of quarterly and monthly audit programmes for individual enterprises by regional offices. The underlying objectives of this detailed planning are to establish priorities, identify significant areas for audit appraisals and achieve the optimum utilisation of audit resources.
The process of programming includes the assignment of various audits to specific audit teams and supervisors. Audit, as an ex-post operation, is conducted both in the headquarters of the enterprise under audit and also at selected field locations. Depending on the size and complexity of the enterprise, auditing takes place through either resident audit staff located within the enterprise or audit staff deputed for a certain number of days.
The regional offices of the SAI maintain a register of audits which records, for each audit the number of days allotted, actual days taken, and dates of commencement and completion with reasons for any delays which may be encountered. This formal record facilitates control over the implementation of audit programmes.
The SAI operates a special staffing group for the audit of public enterprises. This group is the commercial audit wing of the Indian Audit Department. Specially trained and qualified staff are engaged in these audits. The relevant staff members have to qualify in departmental examinations before occupying positions at various levels. Training is also provided from time to time for the updating of technical knowledge and auditing skills.
The SAI is required to audit and report on the financial statements of public enterprises annually. The audit of transactions is continuous in the case of major enterprises and annual in the case of others. Increasingly, more attention is being paid to the soundness of control systems and their effective operation.
In addition to the annual audit of the financial statements of public enterprises, comprehensive audit appraisals are conducted periodically. A number of public enterprises, both of the central and state governments, are selected each year for this type of periodical audit extending to considerations of efficiency and effectiveness.
Detailed procedures have been formulated by the SAI for conducting the audit and finalising the audit report of public enterprises. In order to obtain appropriate information from the head of the audited enterprise, audit memoranda are issued in writing with the approval of the supervisor of that particular audit team of the SAI. Initial audit observations if any, are also communicated through such memoranda. On receipt of the required information by way of reply to the audit memoranda, the supporting documents and data are analysed. The audit supervisor himself reviews the most important records and monitors the work of the audit team.
During the closing stages of the audit, the supervisor discusses the audit findings with the head of the enterprise concerned or his representative and proceeds to the preparation of his draft report. The draft report is forwarded to the regional audit office where it is examined in the light of the comments and/ or replies of the management of the enterprise.
The material intended for inclusion in the conventional report of the SAI is segregated and issued to the particular ministry as draft paragraphs. A period of six weeks is allowed for the examination of this material by the ministry. After due consideration of the views of the ministry, the SAI includes the final material in his annual report to the legislature.
The annual reports of the SAI on the public enterprises of the central government are presented to the Parliament in several parts:
The audit reports of the SAI on public enterprises are followed up by the Committee on Public Undertakings, a special parliamentary committee which each year selects a number of audit reports for attention. These reports are examined, discussed and reported on by the Committee. The increase in the volume of material contained in the reports, in conjunction with time constraints, restricts the number of reports selected and the overall coverage. Reports not selected by the Committee are carried forward for discussion in the future. However, the Committee is aware of the need to evolve methods to overcome the delay and clear the backlog.
The SAI assists the Committee in examining the audit reports. Either the Comptroller and Auditor General himself, or one of his deputies, is always present at Committee meetings when audit reports are discussed and evidence taken from the representatives of the ministry and public enterprise concerned. The SAI actively assists at these meetings and, in fact, suggests the actual questions to be asked of the representatives of the management and ministries. Although the SAI is not associated with the drafting of the Committee's reports, these are usually vetted by the SAI.
The proceedings of the Committee are not open to the media or public. However, the reports submitted by the Committee after examination of the audit reports of the SAI become public documents when they are tabled in Parliament. These reports of the Committee, which contain relevant extracts of Committee meetings, are not ordinarily discussed by the Parliament but are generally adopted by the legislature as a matter of course.
There is a set procedure for the implementation and follow-up of the recommendations of the Committee. This procedure involves Action-Taken-Notes and Action-Taken-Reports. The Action-Taken-Notes are submitted by individual enterprises in response to recommendations of the Committee which, after examining these notes, prepares and tables Action-Taken-Reports in the Parliament. Once again, the SAI plays an active part in examining both the Action-Taken-Notes of individual enterprises and Action-Taken-Reports of the Committee, which are based on the audit reports of the SAI.