India News and Features Alliance (INFA)

CORRUPTION, CBI AND VIGILANCE, By Inder Jit, 11 April 2024

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 23^rd 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 “19^th 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