Cases of Vigilance Commission pending with Government - Review of.

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
G.V.K.Rao, Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha,
D.O. No. GAD 23 IPN 75 Bangalore, Dated June 17, 1975.
My Dear
Sub:- Cases of Vigilance Commission pending with Government - Review of.

In the meeting of Secretaries on 21.4.1975 the pendancy of Vigilance Commission reports in the Secretariat was reviewed. It was decided that Secretaries would review this pendancy from time to time so that these cases are disposed of promptly.
I had a few cases (pending for over one year in some of the Secretariat Departments) reviewed to ascertain the reasons for delay in passing final orders. The results of the
review reveal that the manner of examiniation of the reports of the Vigilance Commission in the Secretariat Department leaves much to be desired.
Firstly, it appears that those who deal with these cases lack basic knowledge of the provisions of the C.C.A., Rules and the Correct procedure to be followed. This has resulted in abnormal delays in finalising the cases. In one case, for instance, a direction was given to consult the Public Service Commission even before Government took a decision on the findings of the Vigilance Commission and a Show cause notice was issued to the AGO and the matter was delayed till the P.S.C. pointed out the non-observance of the presceibed procedure. In another case, a decision was taken to send the report of the Vigilance Commission to the head of the Department for taking necessary action since the AGO was a non-gazetted Government servant, although, under the rules, Government was the disciplinary authority. This incorrect decision lead to avoidable delay in processing the case.
Secondly, there is a tendancy to view these reports of the Vigilance Commission on as reports from field departments and to examine and scrutinise them accordingly. Such an examination is unnecessary and orders almost on the rediculous, because these are chiefly inquiry reports which are sent to Government as the disciplinary authority for deciding on the recommendations made.
In my view it would be appropriate to examine or scrutinise these reports at any level lower than that of a Deputy Secretary. Even at these levels, what is required is to record Government's findings, as the disciplinary authority on each of the charges and then to communicate them to the AGOs through the show cause notice, intimating them the penalty proposed. Since these inquiries have been conducted very comprehensively and the findings are normally well supported. It may not be open to Government to differ with them except in rare cases where gross mis-carriage of justice, perversity, improper or unsound, reasoning etc. is manifest. It would, therefore be advisiable to accept the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission in most cases and record findings to that effect. I may also mention that whenever a view is taken which is inconsistant with the recommendations of the State Vigilance Commission in regard to disciplinary action against a Government servant, the matter has to go to the Cabinet for orders and this has also to be commented upon in the annual report of the Vigilance Commission which is submitted to the Legislature.
What is crucial in the processing or Vigilance cases is the manner in which these reports should be handled at Government level. A note indicating the procedure to be followed in handling these cases is appended.
I shall be glad if you could impress upon all concerned officers and staff in your department the need to followe the correct procedure in examining these reports and in passing orders thereon.
Please acknowledge this letter.
Yours Sincerely.
sd/-
G.V.K.Rao,
Chief Secretary to Government.