CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISION

VAISAKH B
1251
6TH SEM A
Introduction:

Vigilance in the context of any organization would mean keeping a watchful eye on the
activities of the officers and officials of the unit to ensure integrity of personnel in
their official transactions. Vigilance, in other words, is to ensure clean and prompt
administrative action towards achieving efficiency and effectiveness of the employees
in particular and the organization in general, as lack of Vigilance leans to waste, losses
and economic decline.

Corruption in the administration is a serious problem affecting Indian polity.

Incorruptibility is an essential requirement for public confidence in the
administration of Government departments. Government in order to strengthen the
existing mechanism created Central Vigilance Commission in February 1964. And the
main concerns regarding formation of CVC was to (a) Prevention of corruption and
maintenance of integrity amongst Government servants and (b) ensuring just and fair
exercise of administrative powers vested in various authorities by statutory rules.
Here, two major matters were meant to be addressed, cases related to corruption and
cases related to maladministration but later was not accepted by the Government. The
vigilance commission has jurisdiction and powers in respect of matters to which
executive power of the centre extends.

The Central Vigilance Commission comprises of:-

a) Central Vigilance Commissioner- Chairperson

b) Not more than three Vigilance Commissioner’s; Secretary to the Govt. of India.
History of creation of CVC:

In 1963, by an executive resolution, The Government established the Central Bureau

of Investigation. Before 1963, there existed the special Police establishment
under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to investigate offences
committed by the Central Government servants while discharging their official duties.
With the creation of CBI, SPE was made a wing of the CBI for purposes of investigation;
the CBI derives its power from the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946. 1 Under CVC,
there existed the Chief vigilance Officer in each ministry/department having a number of
vigilance officers under him. There existed Commissioners for departmental enquiries
attached to the ministry of Home Affairs for the purpose of conducting enquiries in
disciplinary proceedings against Government servants. After formation of
Commission, following changes were made: Commissioners for dept. inquiry was
transferred to administrative control of the commission. Vigilance officer in each
ministry came to be appointed in consultation with the commission. But its role is limited.
It is only advisory. The main tasks are coordination, supervision and advisory rather
than investigating the complaints itself, it has no adjudicating power nor power to give
sanctions for criminal prosecutions for offences committed by public servants while
discharging their official functions. 2 It has no machinery to investigate or enquire into
complaints of corruption except to a limited extent.

JURISDICTION OF CVC:

The Commission’s jurisdiction is co-terminus with the executive powers of the Union
therefore it extends to all matters. It can undertake any inquiry into any transaction in which
a Public Servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper or corrupt purpose;
or cause such an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint of corruption, gross
negligence, misconduct, recklessness, lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or
misdemeanors on the part of a public servant

1
Kartikeya Tanna (Tanna associates), Research paper Reforms in the central bureau of investigation and
Establishment of independent prosecuting entity.
2
4 In Jammu & Kashmir, the Government Servants prevention of Coruption of 1975 provides for an anti-
corruption Tribunal to conduct inquiries into allegations of corruption and to recommended appropriate action
and a vigilance commission to conduct the investigations. The Tamil Nadu public Men (Criminal misconduct)
Act of1973 covered only political corruption, but it was repealed in 1977.
The Commission tender appropriate advice to the concerned disciplinary authorities in all
such matters having a definite or potential vigilance angle and an element of corruption or
criminal misconduct or malafide3

CVC exercises superintendence over CBI in the matters relating to the investigation of the
offences alleged to have been committed under the prevention of Corruption Act – 1988.

CVC renders advice at two stages on vigilance matters:

a) FIRST STAGE: To consider investigation report and advice about the type of
proceedings (major/minor) to be initiated.

b) SECOND STAGE: To consider inquiry report and advice about the penalty to be
imposed

VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT -STRUCTURE:

• Chief Vigilance Officer. General Manager (Vigilance)

• Dy.Chief Vigilance Officer (Investigation)

• Dy. Chief Vigilance officer (Technical)

• Sr. Managers/Managers Asst. Managers.

However a feeling has arisen in the Indian context that an increase in administrative
complexity has led to the wide rise of corruption in India.

The CVC is primarily entrusted with the task of looking into matters of corruption in
administration. This is clarified in the official website of the CVOS. It is further clarified
that "Complaints to the Commission are meant to result in punitive action against the erring

3
http://www.cocities.com/kstability/projects/inquiry3/spchap1.html, last visited on 14th February 2019,
Personal Website of R.Kannan, on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks vis-à-vis the Role and
Funcions of the CVC.
public servant(s). Relief as such in the matter to the complainant is only incidental to the
vigilance action. Redressal of grievances vis-à-vis Government organizations or public
sector enterprises should not be the focus of complaints to the Commission."

CORRUPTION:

'Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept,

or attempts to obtain gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration as a motive or a
reward for doing or for bearing to do any official actor for showing or for bearing to show,
in the exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour to any person with the Central
or State Government or Parliament or Legislature of any State or with any public servant as
such". It is held to be the abuse of public office for private gain' Corruption is also described
as the acquisition of forbidden benefits by officials or employees, so bringing into question
their loyalty to their employers.4

Complaints:

Information about corruption, malpractices or misconduct on the part of public servants

may come to light from any source, such as: administrative authority, Complaints received
or intelligence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and by Police authorities,
inspection reports and stock verification surveys, Audit reports on Government accounts
and on the accounts of public undertakings, Reports of any irregularities in accounts
revealed in the routine audit of accounts e.g. tampering with records, over-payments,
misappropriation of money or materials.

Complaints received in the Central Vigilance Commission will be registered and initially
examined in the Commission. The Commission may decide, according to the nature of each
complaint, that:

1. It should be sent for inquiry and disposal/report to the administrative

4
M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur, New Delhi,
Fifth edition, 2007) p.905.
Ministry/Department concerned.

2. It should be sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation for inquiry/ Investigation. 3.

Commission should undertake the inquiry itself.

The Government of India have reason to believe that a good many anonymous complaints
are false and malicious and that such complaints are not a reliable source of Information.
Inquiries into such complaints have an adverse effect on the morale of the services. The
Government of India have accordingly decided that no action may be taken against persons
of anonymous complaints.

Problems:

1. Appointment of Chief vigilance officer is not transparent and clear. As there is no

statutory requirement about the selection have to be unanimous or based on consensus
among the members of the committee.

2. Its function is only advisory, not investigative.

3. Emphasis is not given to finding of Vigilance Commissioner.

The CVC is not a creature of statute. His office is enmeshed with the executive of a state
which subjects him to political interference. The CVC has much weaker status than the
ombudsman. Additionally, the role of the Commission is restricted in that it encompasses
only the advisory function. No investigative powers are conferred upon it and its functions
are confined to exercising a general check and supervision over government department as
compared to the wider powers of the ombudsman. The Commission also does not qualify
as a 'competent authority to sanction criminal prosecutions for offences committed by
public officials. Furthermore, in a number of cases the SC has held that the
Recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner regarding question of punishment
is not binding on disciplinary authority.
Demerits of Central Vigilance Commission

The commission is a part of the executive and is obligated to the state since it has no
statutory basis and has no investigation mechanism at its disposal; it depends upon other
public agencies for the purpose. In Sunil Kumar v. State of west Bengal, An enquiry officer
was appointed to enquire into certain charges against the appellant who was a member of
Indian Administrative Service. Report of enquiry was sent to Vigilance commissioner for
his advice. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, state Government came to conclusions.
The appellant was reduced from higher to lower salary in the same grade. He challenged
the order, and contended that consultation with Vigilance officer, who had no statutory
status and Government, did not furnish report of Officer. Court held that Disciplinary
committee committed no irregularity, and conclusions were not based on advice tendered
by Vigilance officer, but arrived independently. The preliminary findings of the disciplinary
authority happened to coincide with the views of Vigilance commissioner was neither here
nor there. If the commissioner's report is not to be taken into account at all by concerned
authority or if it does not play any role in influencing its mind, then consultation with him
is an empty formality which serves no purpose, therefore, institution practically become
otiose. PSC had a constitutional status, while Vigilance Commissioner has merely an
administrative status. And according to Natural Justice, which requires decision making
authority must apply its own mind, and ought not to be influenced by others.

However present day situation is very unsatisfactory. In order to avoid, options available
are:

1. Government shouldn't consult vigilance commissioner for drawing conclusions from

record.

2. Vigilance commissioner be given a legal status. And provisions must be made in law for
consulting him

Supreme Court held that Chief vigilance Commission cannot dictate the disciplinary
authority as to how they should exercise their power and what punishment they should
impose on delinquent officer.5 Once again Supreme Court held that recommendation of
Chief Vigilance officer Commissioner regarding question of punishment is not binding on
disciplinary committee.6 The disciplinary proceedings against government servants are
taken under Service rules framed by Government under Art.309 of Constitution. Besides, a
public servant can also be prosecuted for bribery and corruption in a criminal court. With a
view to expedite such trials, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now replaced with
P.C. Act) makes certain provisions. As it is in the interest of public that corruption be
eradicated, so also it is in the public interest that honest public servants should be able to
discharge their duties free from false, frivolous, and malicious accusations. PCA thus seeks
to balance both objectives. One hand, it seeks to provide for certain safeguards against
frivolous trials, other hand it seeks to provide for expeditious trial of corruption cases. One
such safeguard contained in Section 17 of PCA is that before a public servant can be
prosecuted for any specific offence7, sanction of State Government is necessary in case of
a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a state and is not removable
from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. Grant of sanction is
only an administrative function. Facts collected during the course of investigation have to
be brought before the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority has to consider
the material. The grant of sanction being an administrative act, the need to provide an
opportunity of hearing to the accused, does not arise.8 Similar is in case of central
Government Explaining the provision Supreme Court has said that sanction of that
competent authority alone is necessary which is competent to remove the public servant
from the office which he is alleged to have misused or abused for corrupt motive. Further
the authority, entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence
collected and other material before according sanction In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of
Andhra Pradesh. SC has emphasized on two significant aspects of sanction for prosecution.

5
Nagraj Shivarao Kargaji v. Syndicate bank, AIR 1991 SC 1507
6
Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab national Bank, (1997) 11 SCC 306
7
The offences are those punishable under s.161 or s. 164 or s.165, IPC or s. 5(2) or 5(3A) of the
РСА.
8
Superintendent of Police (CAI) v. Deepak Chowdhary. AIR 1996 SC 186.
First, any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail as the entire proceedings are
rendered void ab initio. Therefore the prosecution must prove that valid sanction has been
granted by the sanctioning authority. Secondly, the sanctioning authority must be satisfied
that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. The sanctioning
authority at the time of giving sanction must be aware of the facts constituting the offence
and must apply its mind. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality. It is a sacrosanct act
which affords protection to the Government Servants against frivolous prosecution. In State
of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak it was held that protection under section 197 is available only
when alleged act done by public servant is reasonably connected with discharge of his
official duty. For the interest of democratic government and its functioning, the governor
must act in such a case on his own

Conclusion:

Considering the working of CVC (Central Vigilance commission), whose office is

enmeshed with powers, there are few suggestions:

• It is suggested amending the CVC Act to provide for including the Vice President of India
as the chairman and a nominee of the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection
committee.

• The selection must be by consensus among the members, and selection by the majority of
the members present should be adopted only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons
to be recorded in the committee's proceedings.

• The proceedings, along with full particulars of persons considered for the preparation of
the panel and the reasons based on which the final selection was made, should be published.
This would ensure that the composition of the committee does not give a steam-roller
majority to the government and that the committee functions in a non-partisan and
transparent manner,

• The Central Vigilance Commissioner is to be appointed by President. The commission is

attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs, but it is not sub ordinate to any Ministry or
Department and has same measure of Independence and autonomy as the UPSC

Government shouldn't consult vigilance commissioner only for drawing conclusions from
record.

• Vigilance commissioner be given a legal status. And provisions must be made in law for
consulting him.

• Status of CVC should be equal to Ombudsman.