The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has recently issued a directive to all Union government Ministries and Departments, instructing them to strictly follow the time limits for different stages of disciplinary proceedings in vigilance cases. This move comes in light of the increasing number of delays observed in these procedures, which were resulting in an unfair benefit or causing unnecessary harassment to the officials being charged.
The Problem of Non-Adherence to Time Limits
The CVC had previously voiced concerns over investigators not adhering to the stipulated time frames, despite clear guidelines being provided by both the CVC itself and the Department of Personnel & Training. As a result, investigations were taking much longer than necessary. To address this issue, The Supreme Court also ordered that the period of stay granted by a court of law be limited to six months, except in exceptional cases.
Causes behind the Pending Cases
There are several reasons why cases remain pending. These include stays granted by a court of law, cases awaiting resolution in a court of law, and instances where a case has been kept in abeyance because the official concerned has been terminated from service.
Impacts of the Prolonged Proceedings
Undue delay in handling these cases sets a poor precedent. It allows a corrupt public servant prolonged opportunities to engage in inappropriate activities. Furthermore, any delay in concluding vigilance-related matters harms an honest public servant who might have become involved in a vigilance case.
Central Vigilance Commission: A Brief Overview
Established in 1964 based on recommendations from the Committee chaired by Shri K. Santhanam, the Central Vigilance Commission is the topmost vigilance institution. It is independent of any executive authority and oversees all vigilance activity under the Central Government. Furthermore, it advises various authorities in Central Government organizations on planning, executing, reviewing, and reforming their vigilance work.
Roles and Responsibilities of the CVC
The CVC is responsible for receiving complaints about corruption or misuse of office and recommending appropriate action. The Central government, Lokpal, and whistleblowers can approach the CVC with their concerns. However, it is not an investigating agency itself. Instead, it delegates the investigation to either the Central Bureau of Investigation or Chief Vigilance Officers (CVO) in government offices.
CVC’s Organizational Structure and Governance
The Central Vigilance Commission has its own Secretariat, a Chief Technical Examiners’ Wing (CTE), and a wing of Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDI). For investigation work, the CVC relies on two external sources: the CBI and Chief Vigilance Officers (CVO).
The Composition of the Central Vigilance Commission
The Central Vigilance Commission consists of a Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson) and up to two Vigilance Commissioners (Members). These individuals are appointed by the President based on recommendations from a Committee that includes the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Minister of Home Affairs (Member), and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People (Member).
About Chief Vigilance Officers (CVO)
In each Department or Organisation, vigilance administration is led by the Chief Vigilance Officers (CVO). The CVC’s activities regarding inquiry or causing inquiry are supported by or carried out through the CVOs. CVOs in all Departments/organisations are appointed after prior consultation with the Commission.
Term Length and the Removal Process
The Central Vigilance Commissioner or a Vigilance Commissioner serves a term of four years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first. They can be removed from office only by order of the President on the grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity. This happens after the Supreme Court, upon referral from the President, conducts an inquiry and reports that the Central Vigilance Commissioner or a Vigilance Commissioner ought to be removed.
