Instructions for Improving Vigilance Administration: DPE OM

Instructions for Improving Vigilance Administration: DPE OM

CHAPTER-II

PERSONNEL POLICIES
(g) Vigilance Policies 
Improving Vigilance Administration

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Central Vigilance Commission’s letter No.8(1)(h)/98(1) dated the 18th November, 1998 on the subject mentioned above for information and strict compliance. 

(DPE OM No.15/11/98-GL-012/DPE(GM) dated 22nd December, 1998)

ANNEXURE 

Copy of CVC’s O.M.No. 8(1)(h)/98(1) dated 18.11.1998 as referred to above regarding improving vigilance administration. 

The Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance 1998 under Section 8(1)(h) directs that the power and function of the CVC will be the following:– 

“exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the Central Government or corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government”. 

Improving vigilance administration is possible only if system improvements are made to prevent the possibilities of corruption and also encourage a culture of honesty. In exercise of the powers conferred on the CVC by Section 8(1)(h), the following instructions are issued for compliance: 

2.1 Creating a culture of honesty

 Many Organizations have a reputation for corruption. The junior employees and officers who join the Organizations hopefully may not be so corruption minded as those who have already been part of the corrupt system. In order to ensure that a culture of honesty is encouraged and the junior officers do not have the excuse that because their seniors are corrupt, that they have to also adopt the corrupt practices, it is decided with immediate effect that junior employees who initiate any proposal relating to vigilance matters which is likely to result in a reference to the CVC can send a copy directly to the CVC by name. This copy will be kept in the office of the CVC and data fed into the computer. If within a reasonable time of say three to six months, the reference does not come to the CVC, the CVC then can verify with the concerned authorities in the department as to what happened to the vigilance case initiated by the junior employee. If there is an attempt to protect the corrupt or dilute the charges, this will also become visible. Above all the junior officers will not have the excuse that they have to fall in line with the corrupt seniors. Incidentally, the seniors also can not treat the references made directly to the CVC as an act of indiscipline because the junior officers will be complying with the instructions issued under Section 8(1)(h) of the CVC Ordinance 1998. However, if a junior officer makes a false or frivolous complaint it will be viewed adversely.

2.2 Greater transparency in administration 

2.2.1 One major source of corruption arises because of lack of transparency. There is a scope for patronage and corruption especially in matters relating to tenders, cases where exercise of discretion relating to out of turn conferment of facilities/privileges and so on. Each organization may identify such items, which provide scope for corruption and where greater transparency would be useful. There is a necessity to maintain secrecy even in matters where discretion has to be exercised. But once the discretion has been exercised or as in matters of tenders, once the tender has been finalized, there is no need for the secrecy. A practice, therefore, must be adopted with immediate effect by all organizations within the purview of the CVC that they will publish on the notice board and in the organization’s regular publication the details of all such cases regarding tenders or out of turn allotments or discretion exercised in favour of an employee/party. The very process of publication of this information will provide an automatic check for corruption induced decisions or undue favours which go against the principles of healthy vigilance administration. 

2.2.2 The CVC will in course of time take up each organization and review to see whether any additions and alterations have to be made to the list of items, which the organization identified in the first instance for the monthly communications for publicity in the interests of greater transparency. This may be implemented with immediate effect. 

2.3 Speedy departmental inquiries 

2.3.1 One major source of corruption is that the guilty are not punished adequately and more important they are not punished promptly. This is because of the prolonged delays in the departmental inquiry procedures. One of the reasons for the departmental inquiry being delayed is that the inquiry officers have already got their regular burden of work and this inquiry is to be done in addition to their normal work. The same is true for the Presenting Officers also. 

2.3.2 Each organization, therefore, may immediately review all the pending cases and the Disciplinary Authority may appoint Inquiry Officers from among retired honest employees for conducting the inquiries. The names of these officers may be got cleared by the CVC. The CVC will also separately issue an advertisement and start building a panel of names all over India who can supplement the inquiry officers work in the department. In fact, it will be a healthy practice to have all the inquiries to be done only through such retired employees because it can then be ensured that the departmental inquiries can be completed in time. If any service/departmental rules are in conflict with the above instructions they must be modified with immediate effect. 

2.3.3. In order to ensure that the departmental inquiries are completed in time, the following time limits are prescribed: 

(i) In all cases which are presently pending for appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, such appointment should be made within one month. In all other cases, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer should be appointed, wherever necessary, immediately after the receipt of the public servant’s written statement of defence denying the charges. 

(ii) The Oral inquiry, including the submission of the Inquiry Officer’s report, should be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of appointment of the Inquiry Officer. In the preliminary inquiry in the beginning requiring the first appearance of the charged officers and the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer should lay down a definite time-bound programme for inspection of the listed documents, submission of the lists of defence documents and defence witnesses and inspection of defence documents before the regular hearing is taken up. The regular hearing, once started, should be conducted on day-to-day basis until completed and adjournment should not be granted on frivolous grounds. 

2.3.4 One of the causes for delay is repeated adjournments. Not more than two adjournments should be given in any case so that the time limit of six months for departmental inquiry can be observed. 

2.3.5 The IO/PO, DA and the CVO will be accountable for the strict compliance of the above instructions in every case 

2.4 Tenders - Tenders are generally a major source of corruption. In order to avoid corruption, a more transparent and effective system must be introduced. As post tender negotiations are the main source of corruption, post tender negotiations are banned with immediate effect except in the case of negotiations with L1 (i.e. Lowest Tenderer). 

****************


Source: Go the given below link for Order Copy
https://dpe.gov.in/sites/default/files/26pdf.pdf
Share:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers