NEW DELHI, Sep 23: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has flagged 34 major cases of non-compliance by government departments, which diluted its advice of acting against “corrupt” officials.
Click Here To Join Daily Excelsior on WhatsApp And Get Latest News
In some cases, these “corrupt” officials were either exonerated or punishment against them were diluted by the departments concerned, according to the CVC’s annual report 2023.
Of the total, a highest of seven cases involved are under the coal ministry, five in the State Bank of India (SBI), four in the IDBI Bank, three under the steel ministry and two each under the power ministry and NBCC (India) Limited, it said.
One such instance each was in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), the Ministry of Railways, Airports Authority of India (AAI), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) among others, according to the report.
One each case of deviation from the CVC’s advice was also from the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd, Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL), National Fertilizer Limited, Punjab National Bank and United India Insurance Company Limited, it said.
“Non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice vitiates the vigilance process and weakens the impartiality of the vigilance administration,” said the probity watchdog’s recent report.
Giving details of a case of non-compliance of its advice by the coal ministry, the CVC said officials, including a project officer, a chief manager, three managers and a director of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL) were found responsible for irregularities in foreclosing, re-tendering and awarding of a contract for hiring of heavy earth-moving machinery (HEMM).
The commission had in August 2018 tendered its first stage advice for initiation of “major penalty proceedings against 01 Project Officer, 01 Chief manager and 03 Managers of BCCL and other officials involved in the case”.
Aggrieved by the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, the project officer, the chief manager, three managers and director preferred appeal before the respective appellate authorities, who exonerated all the officials through their orders issued between June 2022 and June 2023.
“Exoneration of the officials from charges is a major deviation from the Commission’s advice,” the report said.
“In case of SBI, it said, a regional business office of the bank had incurred huge expenditure in shifting/renovation/repair work and purchase of fixed assets of new/existing branches without following the prescribed procedure.” The expenditure for a particular work was split into parts to keep them within the delegated financial powers of lower level functionaries and tenders were floated without following norms, the report highlighted.
After departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed major penalties on both the officials (an assistant general manager and a chief manager) against whom the commission had advised initiation of major penalty proceedings in October 2020, it said.
The appellate authority also considered their “lapses” as serious in nature and rejected appeals of both the officials, the CVC report noted.
However, the review committee “even after observing lapses on their part”, modified the penalty to administrative warning via its order issued in September 2022.
Citing the case of the DJB, the report said it was noticed that during execution of certain work, irregularities like acceptance of incomplete/sub-standard work, booking of extra material, overpayment and bogus payment to the contractor had allegedly taken place, causing “huge monetary loss” to the government exchequer.
The commission had tendered first stage advice for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the junior engineer (JE), which was imposed by the disciplinary authority through its order issued in June 2022.
Aggrieved by the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, the JE preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which retained the order of the disciplinary authority.
The JE then preferred a revision petition before the revisionary authority, which modified the “major penalty” into “minor penalty” through its order dated July 3, 2023.
“Imposition of minor penalty by the revisionary authority is a deviation from Commission’s advice,” the report said.
In the case of the Delhi government, it said “gross misconduct” was observed in awarding a contract to a private firm for engagement of manpower by violating the guidelines issued by the Department of Expenditure and the CVC.
“The tender was awarded to a private firm without obtaining approval of the competent authority and by ignoring the fact that the firm did not have the required licenses,” according to the report.
The commission had in August 2021 advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against an administrative officer and other officials involved in the cases.
The disciplinary authority, in July last year, dropped the article of charges served upon the administrative officer, the report said, adding that it “is a major deviation from the Commission’s advice”. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
