By Aryan Mohanty
Published On: February 22, 2022 at 20:12 IST
Introduction
Corruption is always one of the top concerns that inhabitants of a country have. Corruption has become unavoidable, especially in democracies where power is concentrated in too few hands. Because they are directly accountable to the citizens of that country.
Vigilance entails taking clean and timely administrative action in order to improve staff efficiency and effectiveness, as well as the organization’s overall efficiency and effectiveness, since a lack of Vigilance leads to waste, losses, and economic deterioration.
Corruption is one of the most important issues confronting India’s political system. In its 2017 Corruption Perception Index, Berlin-based corruption monitor Transparency International (TI) ranked India 76th out of 168 countries. Given these figures, India must constantly keep a close check on the activities of its personnel and their official transactions.
The Central Vigilance Commission was established by the Indian government in 1964 to combat corruption in the administration. It was carried out on the advice and guidance of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, led by Shri K. Santhanam, which was established to advise and guide Central Government agencies in the field of vigilance.
The term vigilance refers to attentiveness, watchfulness, or caution. Preventive vigilance refers to the bank’s senior management’s constant watchfulness in order to avoid any unforeseen situations with negative financial consequences for the organisation and its clients.
A bank’s aim should be to achieve high levels of system integrity by raising awareness and growing dedication and probity at all levels and operations, resulting in an organisation that meets world-class efficiency and professionalism standards.
Customers must be educated about the need of maintaining vigilance so that they do not lose their hard-earned money owing to their own inadvertence or neglect. The necessary efforts should be taken to instil a desire to achieve the highest ethical and professional standards while maintaining the bank’s integrity and dignity.
The vision and purpose of the bank may be adequately adapted and visibly displayed on the office premises, and individual workers may be urged to follow the same throughout their day-to-day work in the bank, depending on the bank’s organisational requirements.
Central Vigilance Commission
The Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) was established by the Government of India on February 11, 1994, in response to the Committee on Prevention of Corruption’s suggestion (popularly known as Santhanam Committee).
The Commission serves as the ultimate body for general supervision and control over problems of vigilance in administration and public life. The “Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998” gave the Commission statutory standing, which took effect on August 25, 1998.
While the Commission continues to carry out the tasks delegated to it by the Government’s Resolution (to the extent that they are not in conflict with the terms of the Ordinance), it has been given certain new powers to help it function more effectively.
The Commission’s creation was seen as necessary for developing and implementing consistent criteria in matters involving administration’s lack of probity and integrity. The Central Vigilance Commission was given authority by the Resolution to investigate any transaction in which a public official is suspected or claimed to have behaved improperly or corruptly, regardless of his or her standing.
The Government has expanded the Commission’s tasks and powers via successive ordinances and laws. In its decision in the Writ Petition brought in the public interest by Shri Vineet Narain and others in the Jain Hawala Case, the Supreme Court granted guidelines on the higher function of the Central Vigilance Commission.
The involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation was criticised in this case, and the court ordered that the Central Vigilance Commission be granted supervisory authority over the CBI.
Following that, in 1998, the government issued an Ordinance. The Central Vigilance Commission was granted statutory status in 1998, giving him the authority to supervise the operations of the Delhi Special Police Establishment and to oversee the progress of investigations into suspected violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, conducted by them.
The Government attempted to replace the Ordinance with the CVC Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1998, but it was unsuccessful. The Bill was reintroduced in 1999 and sat in the House of Commons until September 2003, when it was approved by both Houses of Parliament and received the President’s approval.
The Act covers investigations into offences allegedly committed by certain categories of Central Government public servants, corporations established by or under any statute, government companies, registered societies, and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government, as well as matters related to or incidental to those investigations.
The Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003 was drafted in such a way that the Commission can perform all of the powers and tasks granted to it by the Government of India Resolution while being compliant with this Act.
Jurisdiction
The Commission’s authority overlaps with the Union’s executive powers. It has the authority to conduct an investigation into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted improperly or corruptly; or to order an investigation into any complaint of corruption, gross negligence, misconduct, recklessness, lack of integrity, or other types of misdeeds or misdemeanours on the part of a public servant.
In all such cases, the Commission provides appropriate guidance to the relevant disciplinary authorities. The Commission has limited its jurisdiction to scale-III and above officers in public sector banks for practical reasons.
However, in composite cases involving officials who fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction and others who do not, the case as a whole must be referred to the Commission for advice. Such composite references allow the Commission to get a broad picture of the transaction’s individual responsibilities.
Because it is a composite matter, it will not be required to seek the Commission for second stage advice in respect of officers not within the Commission’s jurisdiction and award personnel if the Commission’s opinion has been accepted by the Banks.
Functions of Central Vigilance Commission
The commission’s major interest is situations involving government employees’ corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity, or other types of malpractices or misdemeanours. The commission’s role is strictly advisory. It is incapable of adjudicatory responsibilities.
Only a limited number of accusations of corruption can be investigated or investigated by the commission. When the commission receives complaints about the aforementioned issues, it recommends them to the CBI or the appropriate department for inquiry.
Following the inquiry, these bodies will be required to provide a report to the commission. The commission will provide its opinion on the subject. The commission is unable to examine the concerns on its own.
The commission’s Chief Technical Officer, on the other hand, performs technical examinations of public works, including verifying contractor bills and so forth.
The commission advises as to the action to be taken in the following cases:
- Reports of investigation by the C.B.I involving departmental action or prosecution
- Reports of investigation by the ministry or department involving disciplinary action in cases either referred by the commission or otherwise
- Cases received direct from the public sector undertakings and statutory corporations.
The commission has the authority to order that any departmental process involving an oral inquiry be committed to one of the Commissioners for departmental inquiries.
It supervises the commissioners’ investigations, and the commission is responsible for ensuring that the investigations are finished as quickly as possible, as well as providing recommendations to the disciplinary authorities on how to proceed with the commissioners’ findings.
All vigilance officers are expected to provide a résumé of their organization’s vigilance activity to the commission for review, with a focus on preventative vigilance.
The commission should conduct independent technical examinations of construction and other related works undertaken by various Central Government organisations, primarily from a vigilance perspective, through its organisation of Chief Technical Examiners; the commission should scrutinise and approve proposals for the appointment of Chief Vigilance Officers in various organisations, as well as assess their work.
The commission shall begin reviewing administrative processes and practises insofar as they pertain to maintaining administrative integrity at such intervals as it deems appropriate. Chief Vigilance Officers and other vigilance employees in Central Government organisations should attend training courses organised by the commission.
Vigilance Angle
Chief Vigilance Officers at the involved organisations have been given authority to determine if a vigilance angle exists in a specific instance when the complaint is filed. Regardless of the outcome of the inquiry, once a complaint has been filed as a vigilance case, it must be regarded as such until it is resolved.
Although an exact description is impossible to give, such an angle might be discernible in situations characterised by:
- conduct of criminal offences such as demand and acceptance of illicit gratification, ownership of disproportionate assets, forgery, deception, and misuse of official position for the purpose of acquiring monetary gain for oneself or another; or
- irregularities that cast doubt on the public servant’s honesty; or
- lapses involving any of the following;
- gross or wilful negligence;
- recklessness;
- failure to report to competent authorities, exercise of discretion without or in excess of powers/jurisdiction;
- cause of undue loss or a concomitant gain to an individual or a set of individuals/a party or parties;
- flagrant violation of systems and procedures
Vigilance Cases in Banks
Vigilance is an important aspect of the management function in financial institutions, as it is in other organisations. The goal of such activities is to improve rather than degrade management efficiency and effectiveness in the organisation.
Risk-taking is a necessary aspect of the banking industry’s operations. As a result, any loss to the organisation, whether monetary or non-monetary, does not have to be the topic of a vigilance investigation.
It would be unjust to utilise the advantage of hindsight to call into question the technical merits of managerial actions from the perspective of vigilance. At the same time, it would be unjust to overlook motivated or rash judgments that have harmed the organization’s interests.
As a result, a distinction must be made between a business loss resulting from a legitimate economic choice and an unusual loss resulting from any malafide, motivated, or careless execution of obligations.
While the former must be considered as a regular aspect of business and ignored in terms of vigilance, the latter must be seen negatively and dealt with according to existing disciplinary processes.
One relevant criterion for establishing the case’s bonafides is whether a person of ordinary prudence, acting within the scope of the specified rules, regulations, and instructions, would have made the choice in the prevailing conditions in the economic interests of the organisation. An affirmative response to this question might indicate the presence of bonafides.
A negative response, on the other hand, might suggest that they are not present.
As a result, a vigilance inquiry into a complaint would not be required based on a simple difference of opinion/perception, a simple mistake of judgement, a lack of efficiency, or a failure to achieve outstanding dedication in the execution of tasks.[1]
Such shortcomings may be cause for alarm inside the organisation, but not in terms of vigilance. They need to be handled independently. The standards mentioned above for determining a vigilance perspective in a case would obviously rule out all situations of personal misdeeds.
Administrative misbehaviour, such as tardiness, intoxicated behaviour at work, and so on, would once again be dealt with appropriately by the disciplinary authorities.
However, if a vigilance aspect has been established, an impartial inquiry must be conducted to ascertain what went wrong and who is responsible.
Investigation
The Government of India established the Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, under the DSPE Act, 1946. It examines and inquiries into allegations of corruption and other misconduct involving public officials.
The Special Police Establishment investigates incidents based on information gathered from their own sources or information obtained from members of the public. It also looks into matters that have been referred to them by the Commission and administrative authorities.
A regular case (RC) is filed u/s 154 Cr.P.C. if the information reveals, prima facie, the conduct of a cognizable offence.
However, if the material appears to reveal the conduct of irregularities that require additional investigation, a preliminary enquiry (PE) is initiated. If the PE indicates that a cognizable offence has been committed, a normal case is opened for further investigation.
A copy of a preliminary enquiry or regular case is forwarded to the Head of Department and/or the administrative Ministry as soon as it is registered. If the public servant in question falls under the Commission’s advisory jurisdiction, a copy of the PE/RC is also given to the Commission.
In most cases, the Special Police Establishment does not follow up investigations or record cases involving minor procedural faults. They must also take into account a particular officer’s positive accomplishments when proposing RDA so that a single procedural misstep does not undo a lifetime of hard work.
Many anonymous/pseudonymous complaints are harmful and untrue. Investigations into such allegations have a negative impact on the morale of the Organization’s employees. All such complaints should, in most cases, be ignored and filed.
However, such complaints may often be a valuable source of information, particularly when it comes to powerful people that the complainant is unwilling to make open claims against. The disciplinary authority shall have the power to investigate such complaints including verifiable information, and will do so in cooperation with the CVO or his nominee.
While pursuing such a complaint with such selective cognizance, a copy of all facts should be made available to the official concerned for his remarks as soon as practicable.
Only after evaluating his response should further action be considered. If additional inquiry is required, any pertinent papers should be taken into possession to eliminate the possibility of their being tampered with later.
An inquiry into the claims included in an anonymous/pseudonymous complaint would be conducted in the same way as any other form of complaint would be. However, anonymous/pseudonymous complaints received by the Commission for inquiry and reporting may be classified as “source information” and handled as such.
The CVO should conduct a preliminary inquiry after deciding that the accusations in a complaint should be investigated departmentally (generally termed as investigation). He has the option of conducting the preliminary investigation personally or delegating it to one of the Vigilance Officers.
He may also recommend to the administrative body that the inquiry be entrusted to any other officer deemed fit for the job under the circumstances. The goal of such an investigation is to see if the claims have any merit in the first place.
- Depending on the nature of the claims and the investigating officer’s assessment, the preliminary investigation might be conducted in a variety of ways, for example:
- If the accusation includes information that may be confirmed by papers, files, or other departmental records, the investigating officer should collect such records and files for personal review as soon as possible.
- If any paper is discovered that has evidence that supports the charges, he should take it over and keep it in his own control to avoid the danger of the evidence being tampered with later.
- If the papers in issue are needed for a current action, it may be worth considering if authorised copies of the relevant sections of the record will suffice, with the originals remaining in the possession of the investigating officer.
- If this is not possible, the official who requires the documents or papers in question for immediate action should be held accountable for their safe care, with verified duplicates kept for investigation purposes.
- When the claimed facts are likely to be known to another department employee, the investigating officer should question them or request a written statement from them. A comprehensive record of the questioning may be preserved in the case of oral interrogation, and the person interrogated may be requested to sign as a sign of his affirmation of his testimony.
- Important information revealed during oral questioning or in written statements should be sought to be confirmed wherever possible.
- If more information is required from personnel of another government agency, bank, or PSU, the investigating officer should contact the respective CVO for help in obtaining the necessary resources.
During the preliminary investigation, the concerned employee may be given the chance to provide his or her version of the events in order to see if he or she has any credible explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, the employee in question may be subjected to unjustified discipline.
At this point, though, there is no discussion of making any documents available to him. In circumstances when a decision to commence department proceedings must be made quickly, such as when a public worker is about to retire or superannuate and the charge sheet must be sent to him before he retires, such an opportunity need not be provided.
As a basic administrative necessity, the concerned employee may be given the chance to provide his version of the facts during the preliminary investigation to see if he has any credible explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, the employee in question might face unjustified disciplinary action.
At this point, though, there is no way of making any documents available to him. When a decision to commence department proceedings must be made quickly, such as when a public servant is about to retire or superannuate and the charge sheet must be sent to him before he retires, such an opportunity need not be provided.
Timeliness in the conduct of the preliminary inquiry cannot be overemphasised. Both the courts as well as administrative instructions have indicated that there should not be an inordinate delay between the occurrence of the impugned events and the issue of the charge sheet.
The current instructions of the Government are that the preliminary inquiry should be completed within 3 months.
In the State of MP Vs. Bani Singh[2] it was held that an inordinate and inexplicable delay in finalisation of the charge sheet can itself be a ground for quashing of the same on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity. Similarly, delayed charge-sheets can also be legally challenged on grounds of staleness.
Further, in State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal[3] it was held that in the case of inordinate delay the burden of proving that the delay was due to a reasonable cause would be on the department.
Although it may not be ideal to set a time restriction for staff accountability, the need of ensuring that it is done as soon as possible must be emphasised.
Categorisation of Cases
The CVO may classify references into Vigilance A and B before submitting them to the Commission. In cases where the lapses committed/irregularities noticed are serious and a prima-facie case for initiation of RDA for major penalty proceedings has been made out, Vigilance-B would be used; in cases where the lapses committed/irregularities noticed are less serious and do not, in the opinion of the CVO, reflect negatively on the integrity of the official concerned, Vigilance-B would be used.
In most circumstances, vigilance-B cases will not result in any of the administrative penalties generally connected with the filing of a vigilance case against an official.
These instances will be tracked through the Vigilance Complaints Register until they are resolved, but only because they technically fit within the definition of vigilance, not because the official is responsible for a significant misdeed/misconduct or similar carelessness.
As a result, while an official can be disciplined for a minor offence, he or she cannot be placed on the ‘Agreed’ list, posted, trained, or otherwise disabled while the disciplinary processes are pending.
If he is found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, he will be appropriately punished, but for all other purposes (except promotion, which is subject to a separate sealed cover procedure), he will be treated equally/comparably to other similarly placed employees facing minor penalty proceedings in a non-vigilance case.
Regular Hearing
After all of the preliminary hearings are completed, the IO will set the dates and location of the regular sessions. In most cases, he should hear the matter on a daily basis and not issue any adjournments unless there are unavoidable and exceptional reasons. Acknowledged papers may be recorded in their entirety, and admitted facts, if any, may be included on the order-sheet.
In the primary occasion, the PO would be approached to put forth his perspective. He ought to present unadmitted/questioned archives through applicable observers. He ought to in the assessment in-boss, analyze his observers so that draws out the case in a coherent way.
The IO ought to likewise guarantee that the observer comprehends the inquiry appropriately. He ought to safeguard him against any out of line treatment, denying questions which are driving, unessential, abusive or lazy in nature. Quite far, all proof should be recorded in story structure.
Past articulations conceded by the observer should likewise be taken on record. After the assessment of an observer is finished, the observer might be interviewed by the CO or his DA to bring out further facts, eliminate inconsistencies; or illuminate the dependability of the observer.
After the questioning, the PO may re-evaluate the observer on any point on which he had been interviewed however not on any new matter except if explicitly permitted by the IO. In the last option case, the CO would reserve an option to further interview the observer.
The IO may likewise put such inquiries to an observer as he might suspect fit, whenever during the request, to draw out reality and for the development of a fair and clear comprehension of the case. With this end in view, he might permit the two sides to interview such an observer on any inquiry put by him.
On the off chance that during the assessment in-head of an indictment witness, the PO feels that the observer is threatening or that his declaration is probably going to influence the arraignment case or that the observer is intentionally not coming clean, he might look for the authorization of the IO to interview that observer after he has been proclaimed unfriendly.
In such circumstances, the PO may, with the earlier consent of the IO, likewise put driving inquiries to the observer in order to draw out reality. The CO might choose to confess to any of the charges during the request.
All things considered, the IO might acknowledge the supplication and record his discoveries. He ought to nonetheless, proceed with the case to its obvious end result if, as he would see it, the confirmation is restrictive or just connects with part of the charges.
Before the disciplinary authority closes the case, the IO may, at his discretion, allow the PO to provide evidence not on the list provided to the CO, or may ask for fresh evidence, or recall and re-examine any witness.
In such cases, the CO would be entitled to a copy of the evidence, as well as a three-day delay and the chance to review the necessary papers.
The IO, on the other hand, should not allow such material to be used to fill in any gaps in the evidence on file, but only where there is an inherent flaw or defect in the evidence that was initially presented.
Appeal and Review
If the appellate/reviewing authority seeks to change the initial order of punishment in an appeal or review, the Commission’s advice isn’t required if the proposed adjustment is within the limitations of the Commission’s original recommendation.
For example, if the appellate or reviewing body wants to alter the initial penalty imposing such a penalty with another large penalty based on the Commission’s recommendation, the Commission’s advice at the appeal/review stage would be unnecessary.
In the current case, however, if the adjusted penalty is not a significant penalty, the Commission’s guidance is required.
Where the Commission has not recommended a particular penalty, the CVO must examine the Disciplinary Authority’s final orders to determine whether the penalty is proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the failures.
If the sentence imposed is insufficient or unsuitable, he may propose to the Reviewing Authority that it be changed. After determining that a cause for review exists, the latter may thereafter acquire jurisdiction over the matter in accordance with the regulations.
Conclusion
As we have seen, the Central Vigilance Commission current standing is precarious because it is not a legislative body. In 2010, it was proposed to change the Central Vigilance Commission Act to include the Vice-President of India as chairman and a nominee of the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection committee.
The proposal appears to be sound, given there will be a check mechanism in place from the judiciary’s perspective. It is always necessary to establish a powerful and independent ombudsman system with constitutional backing and authority.
The Vigilance Commission’s standing should be improved by providing it legal status and distancing it from the executive and political spheres, since a robust system is critical in combating corruption and abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
Edited by: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider
References
Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks
Administration of Central Vigilance Commission
——————————————————————————————
- Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 ↑
- State of MP Vs. Bani Singh, 1990 Suppl. S.C.C. 738 ↑
- State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, SLR (1995) (1) 700 S.C ↑