REWIND
New Delhi, 11 April 2024
CORRUPTION, CBI AND VIGILANCE
By Inder Jit
(Released on 12 January 1988)
The Central Vigilance
Commission’s latest report should make all those interested in good, clean
Government sit up. The report was presented to Parliament over a month ago. But
it has not yet received the attention it deserves --- either from the Government
leaders and MPs or from the media. This is despite the fact that the Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) was set up amid great expectations by Nehru and Lal
Bahadur Shastri in February 1964 in pursuance of the recommendations of the
Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Many of us have been expecting
the Commission to be made more effective under Mr Rajiv Gandhi, who has spoken
time and again of an all-out war against corruption. On July 24 last, the Prime
Minister asserted that the drive against corruption would be intensified at the
administrative and social levels. Sadly, however, this has not happened. On the
contrary, even the limited effectiveness of the CVC has been undermined and its
functioning hamstrung. This has constrained the Commission to conclude its 23rd
report relating to 1986 with the warning: “Any lukewarm approach to vigilance
would be a short-sighted, penny-wise and pound-foolish policy.”
To begin from the beginning.
Under the terms of the Government of India resolution of February 11, 1964,
moved by Lal Bahadur Shastri the CVC was assigned three functions: (i) To have
complaints of misconduct or lack of integrity on the part of public servants
looked into and thereafter as may be necessary to advise as to the disciplinary
proceedings or prosecution to be launched. Where disciplinary proceedings are
held, the Commission also advises the disciplinary authority about the penalty
to be imposed, based on its independent and impartial appreciation of the
outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. (ii) The Commission has been given the
responsibility of exercising a general check and supervision over vigilance and
anti-corruption work in the Ministries/Departments and Public Undertakings etc.
and for that purpose receives from administrative authorities progress reports
and statistical returns. And (iii) When it appears that any procedure or
practice in administration affords scope for corruption or misconduct, the
Commission may advise that such procedure or practice should be appropriately
changed.
Importantly, the Commission has
been given the same measure of independence and autonomy as the UPSC. Its
jurisdiction extends to all employees of the Central Government, Central Public
Sector Undertakings and other Corporate bodies. However, ordinarily the
Commission advises in individual disciplinary cases only in respect of Gazetted
officers of the Union Government, SHOS of the Delhi Police; the officers in the
pay scales beginning with Rs 1800 and above in the public sector undertakings;
officers in Scale III and above in public sector banks, the officers in the
scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs 1,760 or above in Port Trusts/Dock
Labour Boards; the officers in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs
2,250 or above in the insurance companies and those drawing a basic pay of Rs
1,000 p.m. or above in local bodies or autonomous and other similar bodies.
Equally importantly, the CVC is actively aided by the Central Bureau of
Investigation which was set up about the same time to help investigate corruption
on a systematic and organised basis. The CVC may on its own direct the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate complaints and furnish reports.
Things worked out well at the
start. The “19th Year of Freedom”, an Indian National Congress
publication brought out in 1965-66, claimed that “the anti-corruption measures
initiated during the last two years have had a significant impact. Many State
Governments have taken similar steps and the drive against corruption appears
to have assumed the dimensions of truly national effort.” The CVC achieved much
with the help of the CBI, which undertook many overdue probes. But the CVC now
finds that it is no longer getting much-needed help from the CBI, originally
conceived as the principal tool at its disposal. The reason? The CBI, according
to the report, has of late been increasingly busy with cases of conventional
crimes, economic offences, smuggling etc. Consequently, the CVC has bemoaned in
its latest report that the special investigative body has not been able to give
its whole-time attention to anti-corruption work for which the organisation was
primarily set up. Indeed, the CVC has not stopped there. It has candidly
expressed the view that “there should be a body, exclusively charged with
anti-corruption work, to do greater justice to this work.”
Appropriately, the Commission
has, over the years, kept a close vigil over the public sector undertakings in
view of the huge national investment and the spread of their industrial and commercial
activities. Surprisingly, however, a brake was applied on this activity by the
Bureau of Public Enterprises in October 1986. It issued instructions that in
future vigilance cases of only Board-level appointees of public sector enterprises
need be referred to the CVC for advice. It said: “In respect of appointees
below Board-level, no reference need be made to the Central Vigilance
Commissioner”. The reason for the change, according to the CVC, appears to be
that since the Board of Directors was the appointing authority for below the board-level
personnel, they should have the power to take disciplinary action against such
personnel. But this stance overlooks the fact that the role of the CVC has
always been advisory and does not in any way interfere with the independence or
autonomy of the public sector undertakings and of the disciplinary authority to
take final decision even in vigilance matters. The advisory role of the CVC had
never been incompatible with the ultimate decision-making authority of the
disciplinary authorities.
The report points out: “The
cases are not few where those responsible for running the undertaking were
themselves involved in financial rackets or that they had shielded those under
them responsible for grave misconduct and wastage of public funds for personal
benefit.” Independence and autonomy, the CVC asserts, should not “be construed
as licence for malpractices and corruption”. Thus, the public sector, which is
responsible for most of the public spending, “should not remain outside some
central vigilance overseeing and accountability to proper norms of public
conduct”. The role of the CVC for overseeing vigilance work as an external
advisory agency, if anything, “need to be further strengthened, particularly in
the prevailing situation when malpractices and corruption of a serious
magnitude continue to haunt the public sector”. The very existence of an
independent central vigilance agency has a preventive value besides providing
the public sector with such benefits as independent professional advice on
vigilance matters and uniform standards for handling vigilance work.
The decision to limit the role
of the Commission vis-a-vis the public sector undertakings not only violates
the terms of reference of the Commission as contained in the Resolution of
February 1964, but also the spirit behind the creation of an Independent
Commission. The Commission is firmly of the view that “this decision of
Government would lead to a big set-back in tackling the problem of corruption
in public sector undertakings and it is a retrograde step”. In fact, the Commission feels that there is clear need “to
strengthen the vigilance set up qualitatively as well as quantitatively in
order to keep a watch over corruption prone areas and corruption prone persons
especially in the public sector undertakings where large investments have been
made”. It finds that the attention paid to vigilance work so far in some of the
public undertakings is “totally inadequate”. The department of vigilance,
in its view, has to be accepted as an integral part of sound management for
improving the financial health and practices of the organisation. “If vigilance
units in the public sector undertakings are headed by officers of experience
and integrity, they would be able to provide valuable assistance in improving
procedures and practices and plugging loopholes in the system, if any.”
The Commission’s report draws
attention to many other points: Evidence of a new five-star culture and
ostentatious living in the public sector. Administrative constraints faced by
the CVC, including the long-standing need for additional staff over the years.
But the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Mr U.C. Agarwal,
is clear that corruption at the administrative level cannot be eliminated
without tackling it at the public and political levels. Early in 1986, Mr
Agarwal, in a talk delivered to the Association of Indian Diplomats, listed
some of the causes for the fall in standards of integrity and efficiency in
public administration as follows: “The general social climate has become highly
materialistic and no scruples or ethical values worry the people in going
ahead. The spread of materialistic culture has become so widespread that all is
considered to be fair in making money. No means appear to be questionable. The
emphasis appears to be more on ‘making’ rather than ‘earning’ money. There are
increasing number of cases of vulgar display of wealth by the socially high-ups
in their style of living, housing and social functions.”
Alas, little
has been done to fight corruption at the political level. What is worse, a
solemn promise made for fighting corruption remains to be implemented. On
August 25, 1985, the Rajiv Government came forward with its eagerly-awaited
Lokpal Bill to provide for the appointment of an ombudsman to enquire into allegations
of misconduct against public men and public servants and wanted it enacted in
two days. Following protests in the Lok Sabha against rushing through with this
important legislation, the Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of
Parliament. The Joint Committee was asked to submit its report by March 1986. However,
this did not happen. Instead, the term now stands extended up to early May this
year… the last day of the Budget Session of 1988. All in all, the powers that
be need to be clear about what they want to do. The CVC’s report, which lays
emphasis on preventive vigilance, is a timely reminder of the gap between
practice and promise. The issue raised in it needs to be discussed in
Parliament. We should remember that Parliamentary democracy is a civilised form
of Government. It cannot survive the depredations of a corrupt administration
and corrupt politicians. --- INFA
(Copyright, India News &
Feature Alliance)
|