Surinder is the senior marketing manager in a public sector company. The company generally manufactures its products after getting a specific order. However, it keeps some stock of items in good demand. Surinder gets an order from London. But the buyer wants supplies urgently from ready stock of the company. He also wanted a confirmation immediately and asks for a discount. Surinder is unable to reach his boss, but accepts the order so as to sell the existing material. Later on, he is pulled up for irregularly accepting the order.
How will you react to the action which Surinder took?
1. He should have somehow got in touch with his boss.
2. He should not have given the discount.
3. His action is justified.
4. He should have given greater importance to following the procedure than to securing the order.
The first option is hypothetical. It is a fact that he could not reach his boss. So we cannot insist after the event that somehow he should have reached his boss. It may not have been possible for various reasons.
The whole aim in this case should be to sell the available stock. Giving some discount is a normal commercial procedure, especially when there is accumulation of stock. No fault can be found with such common business procedures.
Surinder is justified in what he did. His action is in organization’s interest. He followed normal commercial procedures. In the absence of his boss, he had to use his best commercial judgement in the transaction. He also triedthoughunsuccessfully to contact his boss.
The fourth option is incorrect. In fact, this is the main problem with many of the operations of public agencies. Government officials give far more importance to following correct procedures than to attaining organizational goals. This approach leads to inefficiency and absence of dynamism.
An officer’s integrity or honesty may come under cloud if he commits any irregularities. These are – gross or wilful negligence; recklessness in decision making; blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of discretion in excess where no ostensible public interest is evident; and failure to keep the controlling authority/superiors informed in time. In these cases, irregularities are studied in the light of their surrounding circumstances to see whether they raise reasonable doubt about an officer’s integrity.
CVC recognises an important administrative problem in this context. There are situations in which corrupt conduct of officials is clearly evident. These are listed at (i) to (v) above while defining corruption. Now, it is common practice in any bureaucracy to lay down procedures for taking various decisions. If any officer violates these procedures, he commits an irregularity. An irregularity is only a prima facieindicator of possible dishonesty. There are situations in which officers may commit irregularities, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. But on that account, no officer can be dubbed corrupt without examining his decisions in detail. One point for consideration in such cases is whether hisdecision causedloss to the organization.
CVC has, however, recognised that loss by itself is insufficient to establish dishonesty. Managerial efficiency and effectiveness are hallmarks of commercial enterprises. Commercial risk-taking forms part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to the organization, either in pecuniary or non-pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject matter of a vigilance inquiry i.e. an inquiry to determine whether there has been corruption. The test is whether a person of common prudence, workingwithintheambit of theprescribedrules, regulationsandinstructions, would havetakenthe decision in the prevailing circumstances in the commercial/operational interests of the organization. If so, the action is bona fide or well intentioned; otherwise, it is ill-intentioned or malafide.
At this point, we may note that corruptions cases arise not only in Government but also in public sector enterprises. Cases involving seniorofficers of these enterprises fall within CVC’s jurisdiction. We will consider them separately.
Widening the Definition of Corruption
Uptil now, we have considered the kinds of action which CVC regards as dishonest. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) recommended that the definition of corruption should be widened. SARC considers that the CVC’s definition is restrictive and excludes many official actions detrimental to public interest. SARC lists four types of official conduct which while outside the definition of corruption, cause immense damage to public interest.
The first type of such conduct involves gross perversion of the Constitution and democratic institutions, including, wilful violation of the oath of office. Constitutional functionaries act in this manner due to partisanship or animosity. No money-making or other forms of gratification may be involved in such actions. For such acts, the Supreme Court held individuals holding high office guilty of gross misconduct amounting to perversion of theConstitution. At present, no laws but only public opinion, political pressure and individual conscience can stop such behaviour.
The second category of these offences consists of abuse of authority by unduly favouring or harming someone, without receiving any bribes or gratification. Here, the reasons underlying the action are often partisanship, kinship ties and prejudice. Though such acts are outside the purview of present legal definition of corruption, they undermine the moral basis of governance and rule of law.
The third category of actions involves obstruction or perversion of justice by unduly influencing lawenforcement agencies andprosecution.Here again,the actions are driven more by partisanship, kinship and prejudice than by monetary gain. Failure of justice which such acts cause has deleterious consequences.
The fourth type of actions involves squandering of public money, including lavish official life- styles. These cause no financial gains or losses to individuals. However, they are a drain on public resources which have high opportunity value in other uses. They set a bad tone in the prevailing situation of general poverty.
These four types of conduct have to be checked to preserve democratic values and public trust in political system. They create a feeling among common people that government, instead of serving public interest, is busy in self aggrandizement. SARC has recommended that the following should be made offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
¤ Gross perversion of the Constitution and democratic institutions amounting to wilful violation of oath of office
¤ Abuse of authority by unduly favouring or harming someone
¤ Obstruction of justice
¤ Squandering public money