Information about corruption, malpractice or misconduct on the part of public servants may flow to the administrative authority/the CVC/the CBI/the police authorities from any of the following sources:
(a) Complaints received from employees of the organization or from the public;
(b) Departmental inspection reports and stock verification surveys;
(c) Scrutiny of annual property statements;
(d) Scrutiny of transactions reported under the Conduct Rules;
(e) Reportsofirregularitiesin accountsdetectedin theroutine audit of accounts,e.g.tampering with records, over-payments, misappropriation of money or materials etc.;
(f) Audit reports on Government accounts and on the accounts of public undertakings and other corporate bodies;
(g) Reports of Parliamentary Committees like the Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings;
(h) Proceedings of the Houses of Parliament;
(i) Complaints and allegations appearing in the press and other media;
(j) Sourceinformation, if receivedverballyfrom an identifiablesource, to bereduced to writing; and
(k) Intelligence gathered by agencies like CBI and local police.
In addition, the Chief Vigilance Officer concerned may also devise and adopt such methods, as considered appropriate and fruitful in the context of nature of work handled in the organization.
Summary
¤ The Prevention of Corruption Act lists offences which are acts of corruption by government servants.
¤ These acts are: (i) asking or taking money by a government servant for performing official work or for using his influence with another official (ii) obtaining a valuable thing without payment or inadequate payment from a person with whom he or any of his subordinates has official dealings or where he can exert influence; (iii) abusing his position as a public servant for monetary gain or material advantage; (iv) having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income; (v) misappropriation, forgery or cheating or similar deeds.
¤ Some situations create doubts about an officer’s integrity. These include cases involving 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 inform the controlling authority/superiors about his decisions in time.
¤ An irregularity is only a prima facie indicator of possible dishonesty. To come to any decision, the specific circumstances of the case have to be examined. One point for consideration in such cases is whether the decision caused loss to the organization.
¤ Commercial risk taking forms part of business. Even if reasonable commercial risk taking leads to loss, officers are not blamed.
¤ SARC has recommended that the following should be made offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
(i) Gross perversion of the Constitution and democratic institutions amounting to wilful violation of oath of office
(ii) Abuse of authority unduly favouring or harming someone
(iii) Obstruction of justice
(iv) Squandering public money
¤ Santhanam Committee identified four general causes of corruption. These are (i) administrative delays; (ii) Government overstretching its capacity by assuming too many regulatory functions; (iii) scope for personal discretion in the exercise of powers vested in different categories of government servants; and (iv) cumbersome procedures of dealing with various matters which are of importance to citizens in their day to day affairs.
¤ SARC makes a distinction between two kinds of corruption which it calls coercive corruption and collusive corruption.
¤ In cases of coercive corruption, the bribe-giver is a victim of extortion.
¤ In collusive corruption the bribe-giver and bribe-taker act as partners and rob society. The acts involved in these situations defraud public exchequer and also harm public welfare.
¤ Systemic reforms can curb coercive corruption. For example, use of information and communications technology has reduced corruptionin areaslike railway reservation.
¤ SARC has recommended that the Prevention of Corruption Act should be amended to combat collusive corruption. It recommended that in collusive corruption, the ‘burden of proof’ should be shifted to the accused.
¤ According to SARC, an offence could be classified as ‘collusive bribery’ if the outcome or intended outcome of the transaction leads to a loss to the state, public or public interest.
¤ The Central Vigilance Commission was set up in 1964.
¤ The Commission was accorded statutory status in 1998.
¤ The Central Vigilance Commission consists of a Central Vigilance Commissioner [Chairperson] and not more than two Vigilance Commissioners [Members]. The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the President for four years or till they attain the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.
¤ In discharge of its functions the Commission:
(i) Supervises the CBI in investigations of corruption cases;
(ii) Supervises corruption complaints against All India Services officers working with the Central Government; Group ‘A’ officers of the Central Government; and officers of the Central Public Sector enterprises and of autonomous organization under it and similar others.
(iii) Investigates complaintsreceived fromgovernment;
(iv) Orders investigation into complaints;
(v) Advises Central Government and its agencies on corruption related matters;
(vi) Oversees the work of CVOs; and
(vii) Advises government departments and agencies on inquiry reports received against delinquent officers.
¤ Each department, public enterprise and agency has a CVO who is appointed in consultation with CVC.
¤ He acts as a staff officer to departmental head or head of the public enterprise. He coordinates with CVC and CBI.
¤ CBI was set up in 1963.
¤ CBI’s Anticorruption Division investigates:
(i) Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(ii) Cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or any other law which also involve bribery and corruption
(iii) Cases pertaining to seriousirregularities allegedlycommitted by publicservants
(iv) Cases against State government officials which State Governments entrust to the CBI
¤ A collegium compresing the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and the leader of the largest opposition party selects the CBI Dreictor. He holds office for two years.
¤ The CBI cannot begin prosecution proceedings against officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and abovewithout the approval of theCentral Government. Similarly, CBI cannot prosecute officers of CSPEs and other central agencies without the approval of the Central Government.
¤ The Chief Technical Examiner’s Organization (CTEO) functions under the administrative
control of the CVC as its technical wing.
¤ The three approaches to reducing corruption are (i) Preventative vigilance; (ii) Punitive vigilance; and (iii) Surveillance and detection. Their components have been outlined above.
¤ Sources of information or the manner in which corruption cases come to light are – complaints, inspections, officers’ property statements, their reported transactions, audits of accounts, parliament proceedings, parliament committee reports, press and media reports and routine intelligence gathering.
PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. Briefly outline the acts which fall within the legal definition of corruption.
2. What are thecircumstanceswhichcreate suspicions about an officer’sintegrity?
3. What is the recommendation of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on widening the definition of corruption? Explain its rationale briefly.
4. What do you understand by coercive and collusive forms of corruption? In what category will you place Coalgate scam and why?
5. An overloadedtruck is stopped by a traffic constable on the highway. He tellsthedriver that his number plates are covered with mud and have become unreadable. The driver tells the policeman that rain en route and certain muddy stretches caused the problem. The policeman wants to take him to the policestation. Thedriver is worriedthat thedelivery of the goods he is carrying will be delayed and that his boss will get angry. When he pleads with the policeman, the policeman asks for a gift to let him go. The driver pays him Rs 300 and drives away. Discuss this incident (100 words).
6. “Corruption is a problem not so much of individual character of officials as of the defects of government systems and procedures”. Examine.
7. “Prevention is better than cure”. How far does this apply to fight against corruption?
8. Write short notes on:
(a) Illegal gratification
(b) Abuse of authority
(c) Assets disproportionate to known sources of income
(d) Discretionary powers
(e) Chief Vigilance Officers
(f) Lack of integrity
(g) Preventivevigilance.
9. What are the functions of the Central Vigilance Commission?
10. Suppose you are posted as CVO in an organization. How will you go about handling the likely corruption in the office? (300 words)
REFERENCES
Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Ethics in Governance (Fourth Report)
The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act
Advisory Panel on Strengthening of the Institutions of Parliamentary Democracy (Member- in-charge Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Chairperson Justice Shri H.R. Khanna, members Shri K. Parasaran, Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan and Dr. V.A. Pai Panandikar, member Secretary) Dr. Raghbir Singh, Probity in Public Life
N. Vittal, Applying Zero Tolerance to Corruption
