Chapter - 2

DISCIPLINARY
MATTERS
 Chapter 2 - Departmental Inquiries/Disciplinary Matters
Sl. Subject Date of Issue Page
No. No.
Timely completion and reducing delays

21. Expeditious disposal of cases of retiring Public 11/03/2011 35

Servant
22. Expeditious disposal of cases of retiring Public 27/09/2007 36
servant
23. Checking delay in grant of sanction for 28/09/2010 37
Prosecution-Reference to Commission
24. Guidelines for checking delay in grant of 23/06/2010 38
sanction for prosecution
25. Delay in initiating Disciplinary Proceedings 02/06/2010 39
26. Timely completion of Departmental Inquiries 09/03/2010 40
improving Vigilance
27. Delay in completion of departmental 21/09/2006 42
proceedings -Reg.
28. Adherence to time limit in processing of 21/07/2006 44
disciplinary cases
29. Reducing delay in departmental proceedings 18/01/2006 45
30. Guidelines to be followed by the authorities 12/05/2005 46
competent to accord sanction for prosecution
u/s. 19 of the PC Act
31. Adherence to time-limits in processing of 10/08/2004 48
disciplinarycases51/08/2004
32. Adherence to time-limits in processing of 09/08/2004 51
disciplinary cases 50/08/2004
33. Reducing delays in Departmental Inquiries 26/04/2004 52
34. Delay in finalising Vigilance Cases 27/02/2004 53
35. Delay in implementation of Commission’s 03/03/2003 54
advice
36. Delay in Implementation of CVC’s Advice 18/09/2002 55
37. Schedule of time limits in conducting 23/05/2000 56
investigations...
38. Improving Vigilance Administration-Reducing 06/09/1999 58
Delays in Departmental Inquiries
39. Reducing Delays in Departmental Inquiries 19/02/1999 60
Definition of term penalty
40. Definition of term stiff/severe penalty-reg. 03/03/2010 62
41. Definition of term stiff/severe minor penalty 20/06/2003 63
42. Definition of term Stiff & Severe minor penalty 11/08/1999 64
Constitution of Committee
43. Constitution of Committee of Experts for 12/02/2010 65
Scrutiny of prosecution sanctions
44. Re constitution of Committee of Experts for 29/10/2009 66
scrutiny
ii
Sl. Subject Date of Issue Page
No. No.
45. Constitution of Committee of Experts for 28/08/2009 69
scrutiny of prosecution sanctions....
46. Constitution of Committee of Experts for 20/08/2009 70
scrutiny of prosecution sanction
47. Constitution of Committee of Experts for 13/06/2007 71
scrutiny of prosecution sanctions (Circular No
17-05-07)
Reference to the Commission/CVC advice

48. Clarification regarding making reference 28/01/2010 74

49. References to the Commission for first stage 06/08/2009 75
advice
50. Authorization of the Central Government to file 24/07/2009 82
an application (DOPT circular)
51. Reference to the Commission for advice - 18/02/2009 86
information to be enclosed along with
organisations’ recommendations
52. Reference to the Commission for advice 1/12/2008 87
53. R e f e r e n c e t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r 24/04/2008 88
reconsideration of its advice
54. Reference to the Commission for its advice 13/03/2006 89
55. Commission’s advice in LTC, TA,etc. fraud 02/06/2005 92
cases-reference to the Commission-regarding
56. Reference to the Commission for its advice 09/05/2005 93
57. Action taken on advice 16/03/2005 95
58. Procedure for making reference to 26/02/2004 96
Commission’s 1st Stage Advice
59. Commission’s advice in cases not having 19/02/2004 97
vigilance angle
60. Obtaining Commission’s advice in Composite 08/01/2004 98
cases
61. Difference of opinion between CBI and 08/01/2004 99
Administrative authorities
62. Procedure for making reference to the 10/09/2003 100
Commission for its Second stage advice -
regarding
63. Clarification on Commission’s Directions 13/08/2003 101
64. Procedure for making references to the 12/05/2003 102
Commission for seeking advice
65. Non-acceptance of the Commissions’s advice 05/05/2003 105
in the matter of appeals
66. Non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice 10/02/2003 106
in the matter of appeals
67. References to the Commission seeking 03/08/2001 107
second stage advice
68. Consultation with CVC-Making available a 28/09/2000 108
copy of CVC’s advice to the concerned
employees
iii
Sl. Subject Date of Issue Page
No. No.
General

69. Preparation of charge-sheets for RDA in CBI 01/04/2009 110

cases
70. Need for self contained speaking 15/01/2009 112
71. Criteria to be followed while examining the 01/11/2007 113
lapses...quasi-judicial powers...Supreme
Court
72. Jurisdiction of CVC over employees of PSUs 18/10/2007 115
73. DoPT’s Notification under Clause (b) of Sub- 12/09/2007 116
section (2) of Section 8 of CVC Act, 2003 -
Categories of officers of PSUs, Companies,
Societies and other Authorities
74. Difference of opinion with CVC’s advice 10/10/2006 117
regarding
75. Regarding sanction of prosecution of Central 23/06/2006 118
Government officials
76. Protection against victimisation of officials 28/03/2006 120
77. Action against public servants 15/12/2005 122
78. Appointment of Retired Officers as Inquiring 18/11/2004 123
Authority
79. Reporting in ACRs by the officers under 04/10/2004 124
investigation of the officers conducting
vigilance investigation
80. Jurisdiction of Central Vigilance Commission 16/04/2004 125
in relation to the Group B (Gazetted) Officers.
81. DoPT’s Notification under Clause(b) of Sub- 18/03/2004 127
section (2) of Section 8 of CVC Act, 2003 -
Categories of officers of Public Sector Banks
82. Role of Disciplinary Authority in Decision taken 26/02/2004 128
83. D i s c i p l i n a r y C a s e s M o n i t o r i n g - M I S 14/01/2004 129
(Instructions)
84. Reconciliation of data with the CVOs 18/11/2003 130
85. Need for self-contained speaking and 15/09/2003 132
reasoned order to be issued by the authorities
exercising disciplinary powers
86. Utilising the services of outsiders including 01/08/2003 134
retired officers for conducting departmental
inquiries
87. Utilising services of outsiders including retired 25/03/2003 136
officers for conducting departmental inquiries
88. Reconciliation of figures of pending cases with 20/03/2003 137
the Deptt/Orgn.
89. Entitlement of TA/DA to the private witnesses 10/02/2003 138
and the retired employees appearing before
department Inquiry
90. Utilizing the services of retired officers 29/11/2002 139
iv
Sl. Subject Date of Issue Page
No. No.
91. Promotion of Govt. Servants against whom 14/06/2002 140
Preliminary inquiries...
92. Video Taping of evidence 11/02/2002 141
93. Ensuring attendance by private witnesses in 02/11/2001 142
Departmental Inquiries
94. Utilising the services of Retired Government 10/09/2001 143
Officer as Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary
proceedings against the employees of
Banks/PSUs
95. Trackling Corruption Through A proper Follow 25/04/2001 144
up of Audit Reports
96. Advance copy of CVO investigation report to 16/01/2001 145
CVC
97. Suspension of public servants involved in 25/09/2000 146
criminal/departmental proceedings
98. Powers and functions of the Central Vigilance 07/04/2000 149
Commission in relation to autonomous bodies
other than the public sector undertakings’
under various Ministries/Departments
99. Drafting of Charge-sheet 05/10/1999 150
100. Utilising the services of retired officers for 16/09/1999 153
conducting Departmental Inquiries.
.. Terms and Conditions for Appointing retired ..
Officers as Inquiry Officers
101. Sanction of Prosecution 27/11/1998 156
102. Action on CBI report - comments reg. 12/03/1998 158
Chapter 3 - Tenders/Use of website
Mobilization Advance

103. Mobilization Advance 17/02/2011 159

104. Mobilization Advance 05/02/2008 160
105. Mobilization Advance 10/04/2007 161
106. Mobilization Advance 08/06/2004 163
107. Grant of interest free mobilization advance 08/10/1997 164
Integrity Pact
108. Adoption of Integrity Pact (SOP)-Reg. 13/08/2010 165
Integrity Pact - Selection and 19/04/2010
109. Recommendation 166

110. Adoption of Integrity Pact-Periodical regarding 11/08/2009 167

111. Adoption of Integrity Pact-Standard Operating 18/05/2009 168
Procedure-reg Integrity Pact (Revised)
112. Adoption of Integrity Pact in major 05/08/2008 174
Government procurement
v
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
 No.11013/2/2004-Estt.(A)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
---------
New Delhi, dated the 16th February, 2004

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub:- Accountability for delay in decision making.

---------

A Core Group on Administrative Reforms (CGAR) has been constituted under the
chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary in February, 2003 to formulate specific changes in the
systems and procedures in consultation with the ministries/departments concerned and to
advise strategies for changing attitudes. The Core Group has decided that the existing
provisions about accountability mechanism should be reiterated with a view to bring to
everyone’s notice that these provisions are adequate for initiating disciplinary proceedings
when an officer adopts a dilatory attitude leading to delay in decision-making and/or
harassment of the public.

2. In view of the above, the following provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are
brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for information and necessary action:-

Rule 3. General

(1) Every Government servant shall at all times:-

(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.

(2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all
possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all
Government servants for the time being under his control and
authority;

(ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties,

or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his
best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his
official superior;

*** *** ***

Explanation 1:- A Government servant w ho habitually fails to perform the task

assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of
performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within
the meaning of clause(ii) of sub-rule (1).

Explanation II:- Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be construed as

empowering a Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking
instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such

49
 instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and
responsibilities.

Rule 3A. Promptness and Courtesy

No Government servant shall

(a) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner;

(b) in his official dealings with the public or otherwise adopt dilatory tactics or
willfully cause delays in disposal of the work assigned to him.

3. Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the penalties (ranging from
‘censure’ to ‘dismissal’) mentioned therein may be imposed on a Government servant ‘for
good and sufficient reasons’. Thus any Government servants violating the provisions of
Conduct Rules can be proceeded against as it will form ‘good and sufficient reasons’ for
imposing the penalties prescribed in Rule 11. In other words, disciplinary proceedings could
be initiated if an officer adopts a dilatory attitude, leading to delay in decisions making and/or
harassment of the public.

4. Ministries/Departments are also requested to bring the above cited provisions of the
Conduct Rules and CCA Rules to the notice of all the officers and officials in the
Ministries/Departments (proper) and in the organizations/offices under their administrative
control to clarify that if they are found responsible for willful delay in disposal of the various
types of cases dealt with them, finally leading to delay in decisions making, they shall be
liable for disciplinary action in terms of the relevant provisions referred to in para 2 and 3 of
this OM.

Sd-
(Mrs. Pratibha Mohan)
Director

To
All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.

Copy to:

1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi.

2. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi.
3. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi.
4. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.
5. All Union Territory Administrations.
6. Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
7. All attached and Subordinate Offices of the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions and Ministry of Home Affairs.
8. All officers and sections in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions and Ministry of Home Affairs.
Sd-
(Smt. Pratibha Mohan)
Director(E-II)
50
 No. 000/VGL/18
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhawan, Block-A,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023
Date the 9th August, 2004

Office Order No.50/08/2004

Subject:- Adherence to time-limits in processing of disciplinary cases.

The Commission is concerned that the schedule of time limits in

conducting investigations and departmental inquiries laid down in its letter of even
number dated the 23rd May 2000 are not being strictly adhered to and more often than
not, delays have been noticed on the part of decision-making authorities leading to
disciplinary proceedings getting unduly prolonged. The Commission would tend to
view such delays seriously, if willful, on the part of administrative authorities and
would be constrained to advise penal action against the administrative authorities
concerned.

2. All administrative authorities are therefore requested to take note and

strictly adhere to the prescribed schedule of time-limits in dealing with disciplinary
cases.

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

To,

All CMDs of Public Sector Banks/ Insurance Companies/Public Sector Undertakings.

All CVOs of Public Sector Banks/ Insurance Companies/Public Sector Undertakings.

51
 No. 99/VGL/3
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
********
Satarkta Bhawan, Block "A", GPO
Complex, INA, New Delhi
Dated 26th April, 2004

Office Order No 30.4/04

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject:- Reducing Delays in Departmental Inquiries

The Commission had issued instruction on reducing delays

in departmental inquiries vide No. 8(I)(g)/99(2) dated 19.02.1999. The
Commission reiterates the instruction contained therein and direct that
there should not be delay in appointing IO and PO. Generally it should
not take more than 4 weeks time in appointing IO and PO since it is
purely an administrative function.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary
52
 No. 000/VGL/18
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 27th February 2004

Office Order No. 13/02/04

To

All Chief Vigilance officers of Ministries / Departments / autonomous

organisations and societies.

Sub: Delay in finalising of Vigilance cases.

Sir/Madam,

The Commission has observed that a large number of departmental inquiries

remain pending with the disciplinary authorities for long periods. The Commission
has laid down the time limits in conducting investigations and departmental inquiries
vide instruction No. 000/VGL/18 dt. 23.5.2000 and dated 3.3.2003. However, it is
seen that these time limits are not adhered to by various organisations and there is
no mechanism to monitor the progress made in the inquiries.

2. It has come to notice of the Commission, that one of the PSUs has formed a
vigilance committee consisting of Director (P), Director (OP) and CVO to monitor the
progress of the departmental inquiries. This committee reviews the progress of the
departmental inquiries quarterly.

3. The Commission suggests that similar type of system should be adopted in

other organisations, suited to their requirement, to monitor the progress made in
departmental inquiries and check delays in completion of inquiries.

4. Action taken in this regard may be intimated.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary
53
 No.000/VGL/18
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”
GPO Complex, I.N.A.
New Delhi –110023
Dated the 3rd March 2003

To

(1) The Secretaries of Ministries/Departments, autonomous organizations and

Societies etc.
(2) CMDs of all PSUs including PSBs.

Subject:- Delay in implementation of Commission’s advice.

Reference: Commission’s instructions vide Circular letter No. 000/VGL/18 dated

23.05.2000 and 003/MMT/02 dated 07.01.2003.

The Commission would like to invite the attention of disciplinary authorities

to a large number of advices from it at both first and second stage pending implementation
for long periods. It must be understood that a reasonable time limit fo r concluding and
finalizing vigilance cases is already built in the procedure for disciplinary proceedings.
Besides the responsibility for ensuring quick disposal of disciplinary proceedings rest with
the administration and the vigilance department cannot be called in to share it at the advice
implementation stage. Therefore administration must appreciate that it will be called upon to
explain inordinate delay over the above the prescribed time limits for finalizing disciplinary
cases. Accordingly the Commission would like to direct that subsequent to its first and
second stage advice the responsibility for finalization and award of punishment passes
on from the vigilance to the personnel department.

Administration may impress upon all concerned and especially the

personnel departmental that in view of the shift in responsibility from the vigilance to
the personnel, any delay over and above the prescribed time limits for finalization of
disciplinary cases will be viewed as misconduct by the Commission and will render the
concerned officials of the personnel department and others concerned liable for being
proceeded from the vigilance angle with its attendant ramifications.

Kindly acknowledge receipt and confirm having taken steps for compliance of
the above instructions. A copy of this letter is also being endorsed to the CVOs of the
organizations for necessary followed up action.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(R. Ashok)
Additional Secretary
Telefa x: 24651017

54
 Confidential

No.002/VGL/49
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023
Dated the 18th September 2002

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers.

Subject: Delay in implementation of CVC's advice.

Sir/Madam,

As per the information available on the CVC's web-site, updated on

20.08.2002, 3202 cases are pending with the disciplinary authorities for implementation of the
Commission's first stage advice and 1473 cases for implementation of the Commission's
second stage advice. This includes as many as 1947 cases (1 st Stage) and 893 cases (2nd
Stage) pending for more than a year.

2. The instructions issued by the Commission, vide letter No. 000/VGL/18 dated
23.05.2000 and the provisions made in the Special Chapters on Vigilance Management for
Public Sector Undertakings/Banks/Insurance Companies provide for implementation of the
CVC's first and second stage advice within a month of the receipt of Commission's advice.
The Commission has, therefore, taken a serious note of delay in implementation of its advice.
It desires that the Chief Vigilance Officers may pursue the matters vigorously with the
concerned disciplinary authority to get the orders issued on such matters. In the Commission's
view, the CVO's performance would need to be assessed, among others, on the basis of their
effectiveness in expeditious decision in these cases.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(K.L. Ahuja)
Officer on Special Duty
55
56
57
 NO.3(v)/99/7
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhavan, Block "A
GPO Complex, I.N.A.
New Delhi -110023
Dated the 6th September 1999

Subject:- Improving vigilance administration- Reducing delays in

Departmental Inquiries.

Prolonged departmental inquiries not only delay justice to the honest persons
but also help the guilty to breath freely. The Central Vigilance Commission issued an
instruction in this regard vide No.8 (1)(g)/99(3) dated the 3rd March, 1999 thereby stipulating
a model time schedule for conducting departmental inquiries. In order to eliminate the delays
in the departmental inquiries, by virtue of the powers vested in the CVC under para 3(v) of
the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel and
Training Resolution No.371/20/99-AVD.III dated the 4 th April, 1999, the Commission issues
the following guidelines after having identified some of the reasons for delay in the
departmental inquiries:-

1.1 Certified photocopies of documents

As per the extant instructions, while the CBI can pursue the prosecution cases
in the Courts, simultaneously departmental inquiries can also be held. In order to ensure that
the critical documents needed in the departmental inquiries are made available, the
responsibility has been put on the CBI to make photocopies of seized documents within four
days so that the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with. A large number of cases
are pending for more than two years because of non-availability of documents for inspection,
which are already before the Court.

It has therefore, been decided with immediate effect that the CBI should make
legible certified photocopies of all the documents, which they seize, for launching the
prosecution against the charged officer to concerned departments. It is also the responsibility
of the CVOs to ensure that these certified legible photocopies of documents are made
available when the CBI seizes the documents in any Government organisation. This is
applicable to all Government organisations Public Sector Undertakings and Banks.

1.2 Availability of documents to CDIs/IOs

In many cases the concerned departments do not make the documents

available during the departmental inquiries conducted by the Commissioner for Departmental

Page 1 of 2
58
Inquiries (CDIs). This may be either due to inefficiency or collusion. There have been a lot
of cases where important/critical files have disappeared. As failure to safeguard documents is
an offence it has been decided that henceforth the following practice will be adopted by all
concerned:-

The inquiry officer/CDI will ask the concerned departments to produce

the documents within a time limit fixed by the IO/CDI. While doing so it will
be indicated that if within the stipulated time frame the concerned department
is not able to produce the documents the disciplinary authority will fix
responsibility for the loss of the documents and compliance reported to the
Commission with in a period of 3 months.

These documents would cover not only those listed in the charge-sheet
but also additional documents as sought out by the charged officer and
permitted by the Inquiring Authority.

2. All CVOs must ensure that strict compliance of the above guidelines of the
Commission.

3. This order is also available on web site of the CVC at http://cvc.nic.in

To

(i) The Secretaries of All Ministries/Departments of Government of India

(ii) The Chief Secretaries to All Union Territories
(iii) The Chief Executives of PSUs/Banks/Organisations
(iv) The Comptroller & Auditor General of India
(v) The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission.
(v) The Director, CBI
(vii) All Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/Departments/PSEs/Public
Sector Banks/Insurance Companies/Autonomous Organisations/Societies.
(viii) President's Secretariat/Vic-President's Secretariat/Lok Sabha Secretariat/Rajya
Sabha Secretariat/PMO.

Page 2 of 2
59
 No-8(1)(g)/99(2)
CENTRAL. VIGILANCE COMMISSION
********
SATARKTA BHAWAN
GPO COMPLEX, BLOCK-"A"
INA,NEW DELHI-110023
DATED 19TH FEBRUARY,1999.

Subject:- Reducing Delays in Departmental Inquiries.

One of the causes for delay in departmental inquiries is appointment of Presenting

Officer. To avoid such delays, the Commission, in exercise of its powers conferred on it under Section
8(1)(g) of the CVC Ordinance 1999, directs all Departments/Organisations within its jurisdiction to
indicate, henceforth, the names of the Presenting Officer to be appointed while referring the cases to the
Commission for 1st Stage advice and where the Disciplinary Authority proposes to initiate major penalty
action. After the Commission endorses the proposed action, the Departments/ Organisations will ensure
that the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are appointed simultaneously after service of charge-sheet
and immediately on denial of charges by the Charged Officer. The Departments/organisations should
also indicate appropriate disciplinary authority in each case while referring the case to the Commission
for first stage advice. The Commission in turn will communicate its advice to the Disciplinary
Authority/Secretary of the Ministries with a copy to the CVO for follow up action.

To

(i) The Secretaries of All Ministries/Departments of Government of India

(ii) The Chief Secretaries to All Union Territories
(iii) The Comptroller & Auditor General of India
(iv) The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission
(v) All Chief Executives of PSEs/Public Sector Banks/Insurance Companies/Autonomous
Organisations/Societies

60
(vi) All Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/Departments/PSEs/Public Sector Banks/Insurance
Companies/Autonomous Organisations/Societies
(vii) President Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat/Lok Sabha Secretariat/Rajya Sabha
Secretariat/PMO

61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
 Dated
st December

No.006/PRC/1/27483
GovernmentofIndia
< CentralVigilanceCommission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block'A',

GPOComplex, INA,
NewDelhi-110023
the1 2008

Circular No.32/12/08

Subject: Reference to the Commission for advice - information to be

enclosed along with organisations' recommendations.
,
The Commission, in order to ensure correct assessment and speedy
examination of the cases, being forwarded to it for obtaining its advice, has been
emphasizing on the need for sending complete details/records pertaining to such
case(s). However, it is noted that despite the Commission's circular No.14/3/06
dated 13.3.2006onthe aforementioned subject,there isno uniformity regarding the
manner of sending information to it in cases where Commission's advice is being
sought. The Commission, with a view to further streamline the procedure and to
avoiddelayonaccount ofincomplete information, hasdecidedthat, alongwith other
records/documents, the following tabular statement should accompany the
organisations' recommendations:-

s. Name & Allegations Findingsof Defence Comments/ Comments/

No. Designation inbrief the ofthe Recommendation Recommendation
ofthe investigation suspected oftheDA oftheCVO
suspected /inquiry on officer
officer each
alleQation

2. The information in the tabular statement should accompany the

organisations' recommendations inbothfirst/second stage advice cases. This may
benotedforstrictcompliance.

Darban)
Director

All ChiefVigilanceOfficers

87

~.
(Shalini
88
89
90
91
92
 No.NZ/PRC/1
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 9th May,2005

Office Order No. 30/5/05

Subject:- Reference to the Commission for its advice.

Reference:- (i) No. 1/14/73-R dated 24.7.1973

(ii) No. DO PRC 4 dated 11.8.1986
(iii) No. NZ PRC 1 dated 7.12.1995
(iv) No. NZ PRC 1 dated 9.8.1996
(v) No. NZ PRC 1 dated 16.3.2000
(vi) No. NZ PRC 1 dated 12.5.2003
(vii) No. NZ PRC 1 dated 10.9.2003
(viii) No. NZ PRC 1 dated 26.3.2004
*********

The Commission has issued instructions regarding the manner in which the
references to the Commission for first stage and second stage advice are required to
be made. Although these instructions have been reiterated by the Commission
several times, the complete information is not being sent by all the CVOs. The
Commission has noted this lapse with concern and desires that the cases received
with incomplete information will not be entertained in future and returned to the
concerned departments/Organisation.

2. In supersession of all earlier instructions it is reiterated that following material

should be furnished to the Commission while seeking its advice:-

(a) A self contained note clearly bringing out the facts and the specific
point(s) on which Commission’s advice is sought. The self contained
note is meant to supplement and not to substitute the sending of files
and records.

(b) The bio-data of the officer concerned in the enclosed format

(Annexure-I).

(c) Other documents required to be sent for first stage advice:

(i) A copy of the complaint/source information received and

investigated by the CVOs;
(ii) A copy of the investigation report containing allegations in brief,
the results of investigation on each allegation;
(iii) Version of the concerned public servant on the established
allegations, the reasons why the version of the concerned public
servant is not tenable/acceptable, and the conclusions of the
investigating officer;

93
 (iv) Statements of witnesses and copies of the documents seized by
the investigating officer;
(v) Comments of the Chief Vigilance Officer and the disciplinary
authority on the investigation report {including investigation done
by the CBI and their recommendation}

(d) Other documents required for second stage advice:

(i) A Copy of the charge sheet issued to the public servant;

(ii) A copy of the inquiry report submitted by the inquiring authority
{along with a spare copy for the Commission’s records};
(iii) The entire case records of the inquiry, viz copies of the
depositions, daily order sheets, exhibits, written briefs of the
Presenting Officer and the Charged Officer;
(iv) Comments of the CVO and the disciplinary authority on the
assessment of evidence done by the inquiring authority and also
on further course of action to be taken on the inquiry report.

This is brought to the notice of all CVOs for strict compliance.

(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

94
 No.002/VGL/61
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
******
Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110 023
Dated the 16th March 2005

Office Order No.12/3/05

Subject: Action taken on Advices tendered/Complaints referred by the

Commission.

The Commission has observed that some of the Govt. Departments

were not following the prescribed guidelines as regards action taken on
Commission’s Ist/IInd stage advices. It is also seen that some of the departments
are closing the complaints on their own which were forwarded by the
Commission for investigation and report.

2. Para 22 of Chapter X of Vigilance Manual provides that all cases

pertaining to Gazetted Officers (may be read as Group A Officers after passing of
CVC Act-2003), in respect of whom the Central Vigilance Commission is required to
be consulted, will be referred to the Commission for advice (first/second stage
advice). The major penalty cases pertaining to such officers envisage consultation
with the Commission at two stages. The first stage of consultation arises while
initiating disciplinary proceedings, while second stage consultation is required before
a final decision is taken at the conclusion of the proceedings. It follows that the CVC
should also be consulted in cases where the disciplinary authority have initiated
action for major/minor penalty proceedings and propose to close the case on
receipt of Statement of defence.

3. As regards the complaints, para 4.1 of Chapter II of CVC Manual envisages

that the complaints forwarded for inquiry to the administrative Ministries/
Departments, the CVO concerned will make an inquiry or have an inquiry made into
the complaints to verify the allegations and will submit his report together with the
relevant records to the Central Vigilance commission. The reports of investigation
should normally be sent to the Commission within three months from the date
of receipt of the reference from the Commission. In cases where the CVO
need more time, an interim reply should be sent to the Commission. It is
reiterated that no complaint is to be closed by the department on its own
without consulting the Commission, in case the same has been forwarded by
the Commission for a report.

The above may be noted for strict compliance by the Ministries/

Departments.

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary
To
All CVOs of Ministries/Departments

95
 No.NZ/PRC/1
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*******

Satarkta Bhavan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 26th February 2004

Office Order No.12/02/04

To

All Secretaries to the GOI/ CEOs of PSEs/PSBs

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Sub: Procedure for making reference to the Commission for its first stage
advice – regarding.

Reference is invited to the Commission’s circular of even number dated

12.05.2003 on the above subject. It has been observed that after the Commission
tenders its first stage advice in cases of major penalty, the vigilance cases get
unnecessarily delayed or result in exoneration due to non-availability of proper
documents. The Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDIs) have also pointed
out that in many cases the Presenting Officers find problems even in the production
of prosecution/management documents. This results in undue delay in finalisation of
the inquiries.

2. The Commission is, therefore, of the view that the Disciplinary Authority
should go through all the documents/evidences carefully at the initial stage itself
before deciding whether the case(s) against the SPS(s) warrants major penalty or
not. Once a decision is taken by the DA and the case is referred to the Commission
for its first stage advice with the recommendation of major penalty proceedings
against the SPS(s), the Disciplinary Authority should enclose a copy of draft charge-
sheet alongwith the list of documents and witnesses through which the department
intends to prove the charges besides the completed ‘proforma for seeking advice’.

3. Disciplinary Authority should also ensure that the Presenting Officer(s) is/are
given the custody of all the listed documents in original or certified copies thereof
alongwith his appointment order so that the delay in disciplinary proceedings are
reduced.

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

96
 No.004/VGL/3
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
*****

Satarkata Bhawan, A, Block,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-1100 23.
Dtd:19th February, 2004

Office Order No.11/02/04

To,

(1) All Secretaries to the GOI.

(2) Chief Executives of all PSUs/Banks/Orgn.
(3) All CVOs
(4) Dy. Secy.(AVD.III), DOPT

SUB: Commission's advice in cases not having vigilance angle.

Sir,

The Commission has observed that the Deptts./Ministries are not properly
interpreting and appreciating the advice of the Commission that "there is no vigilance
angle to the alleged lapses and the Department may take appropriate action in the
matter".

2. The Cases where the lapses are not having vigilance angle, it does not
automatically mean that no disciplinary proceedings have to be taken. In such cases
the disciplinary authority may take appropriate action under the Conduct and
Disciplinary Rules and the matter need not be referred to the Commission again for
consultation.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

97
 No.000/VGL/187
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 8th January, 2004

Office Order No. 2/1/04

To

All CVOs of Public Sector Enterprises

Subject:- Obtaining Commission’s advice in composite cases.

Sir,

Para 16.2 of Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector

Enterprises provides that if an employee of a PSU involved in a case, falls within the
Commission’s jurisdiction, latter’s advice would be required and any decision of the
disciplinary authority at this juncture may be treated as tentative. Such a reference would be
required to be made even in respect of an officer/staff who are not within the Commission’s
jurisdiction if they are involved alongwith other officers who are within the jurisdiction of the
Commission, as the case would than become a composite case and falls within the
Commission’s jurisdiction.

2. However, it has been observed by the Commission that a number of

organisations are not following this procedure and de-linking the suspected employees in a
composite case. This is not in consonance with the Commission’s directives. The
Commission again reiterates that a composite case should be processed as ‘one’ and action
against every individual employee should be taken only on Commission’s advice, even if
there is only one official who comes within Commission’s jurisdiction.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

98
 Confidential

No.003/DSP/9
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 8th January, 2004

Office Order No. 1/1/04

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Difference of opinion between CBI and Administrative authorities.

Sir/Madam,

The Commission has decided that where there is difference of opinion

between the Deptt./organisation and the CBI in cases where the latter have recommended
prosecution under PC Act etc., the Commission would hold a joint meeting with the
representatives of CBI and concerned Deptt./organisation. In such a meeting the CVO of the
Deptt./organisation should take a brief from the disciplinary authority in this regard.
However, if the DA wishes to attend the joint meeting, the Commission has no objection to it.

2. CVOs may bring this to the notice of all concerned Disciplinary Authorities.

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

99
 No.NZ/PRC/1
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 10th September, 2003

Office Order No. 47/9/03

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Procedure for making reference to the Commission for its second stage
advice- regarding.

Sir/Madam,

The Commission has observed that

Ministries/Departments/Organisations are not properly following the laid down
procedure and also making incomplete reference to the Commission while seeking its
second stage advice. This results in back references to the department and causes
unnecessary delay in disciplinary proceedings. In order to obviate delays on this account,
the Commission reiterates that the cases requiring the Commission's second stage
advice may be referred to it along with the following documents:-

(i) Copy of the Charge-sheet with all the annexures,

(ii) CO's statement of defence,
(iii) The IO's report and connected documents (including PO's brief and CO's
brief),
(iv) Self-contained note on findings of the DA on each of article of charges
along with tentative view of DA and CVO.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

100
 No.98/DSP/9
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission

Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”

GPO Complex, I.N.A.
New Delhi-110023
Dated the 13th August, 2003

OFFICE ORDER NO. 36/7/03 dated 9.7.2003

Subject:- Clarifications on Commission’s Directions

During the meeting of the Central Vigilance Commission with CMDs of Public Sector
Banks at IBA, Mumbai on 25.02.2003, a number of issues were raised. The Commission
clarified these issues as follows:

(i) Commission’s directive dated 11.10.2002 on dealing with anonymous/

pseudonymous complaints.

It was requested to reconsider the Commission’s directive on dealing with

anonymous/pseudonymous complaints modifying the earlier advice of not to take cognizance
of such complaints. The Commission is of the view that such a verification cannot be done in
a routine manner and in case any department/organization wanted to verify the facts, then a
reference to the Commission is necessary. There is, therefore, no change in the
Commission’s earlier ruling on action on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.

(ii) Commission’s clarification dated 10.02.2003 on non-acceptance of the

Commission’s advice in the matter of appeals.

It was requested to reconsider the Commission’s clarification dated 10.02.2003 on

non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice in the matter of appeals. It was clarified that the
DA could differ with the Commission’s 2 nd stage advice for valid reasons and this applied to
the Appellate Authority also. The right to the App ellate Authority to differ with the
Commission, therefore, not interfered with. The Appellate Authority should satisfy himself
that the DA has applied his mind and then take his own independent decision. The
Commission, however, would take a view as to whether the ‘deviation’ in such cases is
serious enough to warrant inclusion in its Annual Report.

(iii) Reference of cases to CBI

It was clarified that the institution, at the initial stage itself, depending on the facts of
the case, should decide whether the case is to be entrusted to the local police or CBI.

(iv) Posting of officer in ‘agreed list’

It was clarified that drawing up and revising the agreed list with the assistance of
CVO is left to the CEOs and if it is desired that a person in the agreed list is to be posted in a
particular position, the institution may take the decision for specific reasons.

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

101
 No.NZ/PRC/1
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 12th May 2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Procedure for making references to the Commission for seeking advice.

Sir/Madam,

Kind attention is invited to the Commission's circular letter of even number

dated 16.3.2000 reiterating the Commission's instructions dated 7.12.1995 and dated
24.11.1997 on the procedure for making references to the Commission.

2. It has been observed that organisations are still making references with
incomplete bio-data forms and insufficient justification to support recommendations. The
Commission has, therefore, devised a format, a copy of which is enclosed alongwith
instructions thereto. The CVOs are therefore, requested to ensure that bio -data forms are
properly filled in and recommendation against allegations are given in the enclosed format.

3. Kindly acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Mange Lal)
Deputy Secretary
Tel.No. 24651010

Copy for internal distribution

102
 Annexure

PROFORMA FOR SEEKING FIRST STAGE ADVICE OF THE COMMISSION

Name & Date of Birth :

Designation
(a) Present :

(b) At the material time :

1. Date of occurrence of the :

alleged misconduct

2. Source :

3. Nature of Lapse(s) :

4. Details of Allegation(s) :

5. Evidence(s) with type :

6. Explanation of SPS and :

reasons as to why the
same is acceptable or
not acceptable

7. Misconduct imputes, with :

relevant clause(s) of CDA
Rules

8. Recommendation of the :
CVO

9. Recommendation of the :
Disciplinary Authority

Chief Vigilance Officer

103
 Instructions to the departments on filling up the proforma
in reference(s) seeking first stage advice of the Commission

1. A separate proforma should be used for allegation(s) in respect of each official.

2. It is mandatory to mention the date of birth. A proposal that does not contain date of
birth will be returned back to the department.

3. In Column (3), the nature of allegation would mean a brief description, say false TA
claim; Use of Excess Authority; Supervisory Lapse; etc.

4. Details of allegation(s) should be indicated in Column (4).

5. Evidences in support of each allegation should be indicated clearly in Column (5).

Type of evidences should be indicated, using 'O' for Oral evidence and 'D' for
Documents.

6. In Column (6), the department should specifically comment on explanation of the

official and give reasons why it is not acceptable.

7. In Column (7), nature of misconduct, along with relevant clause(s) of CDA Rules,
should necessarily be mentioned. For instance, it must be indicated whether the
allegation/imputation reflects lack of devotion to duty or lack of integrity or it is a
violation of some other CDA Rule.

104
 No.000/DSP/1
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission

Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”

GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi –110023
Dated the 5 th May, 2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject:- Non-Acceptance of the Commission’s advice in the matter of

appeals.

Sir/Madam,

Commission
The has issued instructions vide circular No.
000/DSP/1 dated 10th February,2003 on consideration of appeals preferred by
the punished officers against the orders of punishment imposed on them.
Accordingly, the relevant provision on appeal, in the Vigilance Manual, and
Special Chapters on Vigilance Management in public sector banks/public sector
enterprises/public sector insurance companies, would stand amended to that
extent.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Mange Lal)
Deputy Secretary
Telefax -24651010

Copy for internal distribution

105
 No.000/DSP/1
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110023
Dated the 10th February 2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers.

Subject:- Non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice in the matter of appeals.

The Commission tenders its second stage advice before the DA decides on the
outcome of the inquiry in the case of major penalty or takes a view on the minor penalty
proceedings after receipt of the explanation of the charged official. Sometimes after
imposition of the punishment by the disciplinary authority, the charged official makes an
appeal. The Appellate Authority is expected to keep the advice tendered by the Commission
and decide on the appeal. In case the Appellate Authority decides to deviate from the advice
given by the Commission on appeal, the CVO will report this to the Commission which will
take an appropriate view whether the deviation is serious enough to be included in its Annual
Report.

2. The Commission further wishes to stress that reconsideration of advice will be

only in exceptional cases at the specific request of the DA, before a decision is taken by it to
impose the punishment or otherwise. After a decision has been taken by DA or the Appellate
Authority the Commission will not entertain any reconsideration proposal. Such cases will
be treated only as “deviation” from the non-acceptance of Commission’s advice.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Mange Lal)
Deputy Secretary
Telefax : 24651010

106
 000/VGL/187
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 3rd August 2001

To

(i) The Secretaries of All Ministries/ Departments of Government of India

(ii) All Chief Vigilance Officers of Ministries/Departments/Banks/PSUs/UTs/
Autonomous Bodies/ Insurance Sectors.

Subject: References to the Commission seeking second stage advice.

The Central Vigilance Commission is empowered to exercise superintendence

over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the Central Government or
Corporations established under any Central Act, Government Companies, Societies and local
authorities owned or controlled by that Government in terms of para 3(V) of the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, DOPT Resolution No. 371/20/99-AVD.III dated
4th April 1999.

2. Though there is no categorisation of public servants for determining the

Commission's jurisdiction, in view of the magnitude of the total employee strength the
Commission had delineated certain levels for making references to the Commission for
advice, both first and second stage. It was also directed that this delineation would not
operate in composite cases cutting across levels.

3. The Commission observes that, after seeking the Commission's first stage
advice in composite cases, the concerned departments/organisations fail to seek second stage
advice in the cases of all covered by the first stage advice ostensibly on the ground that
certain employees do not come within the purview of the Commission.

4. In view of the comprehensive jurisdiction of the Commission and instructions

regarding handling of composite cases, it is hereby clarified that, irrespective of level of the
public servant, Commission's second stage advice should be sought in the case of all
employees where first stage advice has been rendered by the Commission.

5. This issues with the approval of the Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(C.J. Mathew)
Deputy Secretary

107
 No.99/VGL/66
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block "A",

GPO Complex, I.N.A.,
New Delhi-110023
Dated the 28th September 2000

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers of Ministries / Departments of Government of

India/ Nationalised Banks / PSUs / Autonomous Bodies, Societies etc.

Subject: - Consultation with the CVC - Making available a copy of the CVC's advice
to the concerned employee.

Sir,

Para 3.6 (iii), chapter XI and para 8.6, Chapter XII of the Vigilance Manual,
Vol. I, provide that the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is of a
confidential nature meant to assist the disciplinary authority and should not be shown to the
concerned employee. It also mentions that the Central Vigilance Commission tenders its
advice in confidence and its advice is a privileged communication and, therefore, no
reference to the advice tendered by the Commission should be made in any formal order.

2. The Commission has reviewed the above instructions in view of its policy that
there should be transparency in all matters, as far as possible. The Commission has observed
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held a view in the case - State Bank of India Vs. D.C.
Aggarwal and another [Date of Judgement: 13.10.1992] - that non-supply of CVC's
instructions, which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and
one does not know on what material, which was not only sent to the disciplinary authority but
was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair
and just inquiry. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in writ Petition
No. 6558/93, has also observed that if a copy of the report (CVC's advice) was furnished to
the delinquent officer, he would have been in a position to demonstrate before the
disciplinary authority either to drop the proceedings or to impose lesser punishment instead
of following blindly the directions in the CVC's report.

3. The Commission, at present, is being consulted at two stages in disciplinary

proceedings, i.e. first stage advice is obtained on the investigation report before issue of the
charge sheet, and second stage advice is obtained either on receipt of reply to the charge sheet
or on receipt of inquiry report. It, however, does not seem necessary to call for the
representation of the concerned employee on the first stage advice as the concerned
employee, in any case, gets an opportunity to represent against the proposal for initiation of
departmental proceedings against him. Therefore, a copy of the Commission's first stage
advice may be made available to the concerned employee along with a copy of the charge

108
 -2-

sheet served upon him, for his information. However, when the CVC's second stage advice is
obtained, a copy thereof may be made available to the concerned employee, along with the
IO's report, to give him an opportunity to make representation against IO's findings and the
CVC's advice, if he desires to do so.

4. In view of the position stated above, para 3.6 (iii), Chpater XI and para 8.6,
Chapter XII of the Vigilance manual, Vol. I, and also para 2 of the Commission's letter No.
6/3/73-R dated 20.08.1973 may be treated as deleted.

5. Para 12.4.4 of Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector

Banks and para 22.6.4 of the Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector
Enterprises envisage that the inquiring authorities, including the CDIs borne on the strength
of the Commission, would submit their reports to the disciplinary authority who would then
forward the IO's reports, along with its own tentative views to the Commission for its second
stage advice. The existing procedure in this regard may broadly continue. The disciplinary
authority may, after examination of the inquiry report, communicate its tentative views to the
Commission. The Commission would thereafter communicate its advice. This, alongwith
the disciplinary authority's views, may be made available to the concerned employee. On
receiving his representation, if any, the disciplinary authority may impose a penalty in
accordance with the Commission's advice or if it feels that the employee's representation
warrants consideration, forward the same, along with the records of the case, to the
Commission for its reconsideration.

6. Thus, if on the receipt of the employee's representation, the concerned

administrative authority proposes to accept the CVC's advice, it may issue the orders
accordingly. But if the administrative authority comes to the conclusion that the
representation of the concerned employee necessitates reconsideration of the Commission's
advice, the matter would be referred to the Commission.

Yours faithfully,

109
 No.009/VGL/018
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block ?A?,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 1st April 2009

Circular No.8/4/09

Subject: Preparation of charge-sheets for RDA in CBI cases.

Consequent upon discontinuation of the longstanding practice of

appending drafts of charge-sheets/imputations to the SP?s reports in those cases
where RDA is recommended by the CBI, a number of references have been
received by the Commission from various CVOs soliciting intervention for the re-
introduction of the earlier practice.

2. While the Commission has taken up the issue, separately, with the CBI
(for getting the earlier practice revived), it is ofr the information of all concerned that
as on date, CBI?s decision to discontinue the earlier practice stands. That would
mean that it is for the organisations/disciplinaryauthorities concerned to prepare the
charge-sheets/imputations (as also the lists of exhibits and prosecution witnesses) in
those cases where the CBI recommended departmental proceedings and where
CBI?s recommendation is accepted by the disciplinary authority.

3. Since the SP?s reports are, generally speaking, exhaustive and self-
contained, preparation of the charge-sheets/imputaiotns should not ordinarily be a
problem, per se, for the internal Vigilance Departments/functionaries. In fact, all that
is required here is a careful application of mind. When charge-sheets are prepared
by the v igilance functionaries themselves in departmentally-investigated cases, one
finds no reason why this cannot be done in respectof the cases investigated by the
CBI where, as mentioned above, the reports are well-structured and well made out.
Nonetheless, if the organisation concerned faces areal/genuine problem or difficulty
in preparing charge-sheets in a particular case, the same can be taken up with the
CBI appropriately. N eedless to say that such instnaces/exceptions should be a few
and far between i.e. exceptions only.

4. CBI had also since dispensed with the practice of sparing their officials
for appointment as Presenting Officers in departmental proceedings. Here also, one
finds no reason why a departmental (i.e. Vigilance) functionary cannot present a
case before an Inquiry Officer in a CBI-investigated case when it is the organisation?s
own official who is appointed as Presenting Officerin a departmentally investigated
case.

5. In short, thus, as of today, it is the responsibility of the individual

organisations concerned to prepare charge-sheets/im putations and lists of exhibits

110
and witnesses in CBI-investigated cases where disciplinary action (as distinct from
criminal prosecution) has been agreed upon. Similarly, it is for the organisation
concerned to appoint, in such cases, an officer fromwithin as the Presenting Officer.
Organisations can also arrange for imparting (if need be) some training to their
personnel in these areas. Officers of the Commission and/or the CBI can also be
associated with such training programmes/workshops as faculty members, if the
organisation so desires. It also needs to be ensured that follow up actions on CBI
reports are not delayed or held up on account of either non-availability of ?draft?
charge-sheets or because the CBI is in no position to spare its official for
appointment as Presenting Officer.

6. All CVOs are requested to make note of the above for compliance/
necessary action.

SD/-
(Shalini Darbari)
Director

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Copy to The Director, CBI, North Block, New Delhi

111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
 No.004/VGL/79
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-1100 23
Dated the 4th October 2004

Office Order No. 62/9/04

Subject: Reporting in ACRs by the officers under investigation of the

officers conducting vigilance investigation.

The Commission vide its letter No.4/53/73-R, dated 31 st Oct.1973 had

reiterated the instructions of Min. of Home Affairs issued vide its OM No.43/107/64-
AVD dated 23.10.1964 that those posted to the vigilance organisations should not
have the fear of returning to their parent cadre after a short period with the
possibilities of facing displeasure of those against whom they had made enquiries.

2. The Commission reiterates the above instruction. Further, it may be

ensured that no officer should be asked to undertake investigation against an officer
under whom he/she is posted. If any such occasion arises wherein an officer had
inquired against an officer who is his controlling officer or is likely to assess his
performance for the past period, it should be ensured that the ACR may be written
by the next reporting level, to prevent undue penalisation. Thus those officials who
are/were under investigation should not be allowed to write the ACRs of the officers
who conducted vigilance investigation, against them.

(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

To

The Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments of Government of India

Chief Executives of PSUs/Banks/Organisations
All Chief Vigilance Officers

124
 No.98/VGL/15
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, I.N.A.,
New Delhi-110 023
Dated the 16/04/2004

Office Order No. 26/4/04

To

The Secretaries of All Ministries/Deptts. of Government of India

The Chief Secretaries to all Union Territories
The Comptroller & Auditor General of India
The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission
All Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/Departments,
Autonomous Organisations/Societies etc.
Presient Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat/Lok Sabha
Secretariat /Rajya Sabha Secretariat/PMO

Subject: Jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission in relation to

the officers of the level of Group-B, Gazetted.

Attention is invited to para 5.4,Chapter.I of the Vigilance Manual,

Volume-I on the above subject, requiring that vigilance cases of the Gazetted
officers of the Central Government and its equivalent grade in other Government
organisations might be referred to the Commission for advice.

2. Keeping in view the large increase in number of cases being

referred to the Commission for advice, the Commission has decided that,
henceforth, only cases of officers of the level of Group 'A' and above of the
Central Govt. and Members of All India Services in connection with the affairs of
the Union and Group 'A' officers of the Central Govt may be referred to the
Commission for advice. It is, however, clarified that the Commission's advice
would be necessary in respect of all officers of the Central Government
irrespective of their level, if they are involved in the same matter in which an
officer of the level of Group 'A' or above is involved. The Commission's advice
would also be necessary in cases of difference of opinion between the
disciplinary authority and the CVO with regard to the action to be taken against
officers who are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission if these differences
cannot be resolved with the intervention of the Secretary of the Ministry or Head
of the Departments.

125
3. While delegating the powers to the concerned
Ministries/Organisations with regard to gazetted officers below Group 'A' of
Central Government, the Commission expects that (i) appropriate expertise
would be available to the CVOs; (ii) the CVO would be in a position to exercise
proper check and supervision over such cases and would ensure that the cases
are disposed off expeditiously within the time norms stipulated by the
Commission; and (iii) the punishment awarded to the concerned employee would
commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct established on his/her part. In
order to ensure that the Commission's expectations are fully met, the
Commission may depute its officers to conduct vigilance audit through onsite
visits and also through the monthly information system (monthly reports etc.). If
the Commission comes across any matter, which in its opinion has not been
handled properly, it may recommend its review by the appropriate authority or
may give such directions as it considers appropriate.

4. In respect of cases involving Gazetted officers below Group 'A' of

the Central Government, in which the Commission has tendered its first stage
advice before issue of these instructions, the matter need not be referred to the
Commission for second stage advice if the disciplinary authority, on conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings, proposes to impose a penalty which coincides with
the Commission's first stage advice, provided that none of the officers involved in
that matter is an officer of All-India Service or Group A' officers. The case,
however, may be referred to the Commission for its advice if the disciplinary
authority proposes to take action, which does not coincides with the
Commission's first stage advice, (or it differs with the recommendation of the
CVO with regard to the quantum of punishment to be imposed).

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

126
127
 No.003/DSP/3
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 26th February 2004

Office Order No.14/02/04

To

All Secretaries to the Government of India

All Chief Vigilance Officers
Deputy Secretary (AVD III), DOPT

Subject:- Role of Disciplinary Authority in decision taken.

Sir/Madam,

The Commission vide its Office Order No. 51/9/03 dated 15.9.2003
stressed the need for self-contained speaking and reasoned orders to be issued by
the authorities exercising disciplinary powers. The Commission has however,
noticed that at the time of issuing final orders imposing a penalty on the charged
officer on the advice of the Commission and/or at the time of deposing affidavits in
the courts, some Disciplinary Authorities (DA) mention the Commission’s reference.
The Commission has observed that this leads to an unwarranted presumption that
the DA has acted under the influence/pressure of the Commission.

2. The DAs are again informed that, their orders in the matter of
disciplinary cases or affidavits to the courts, should in no case imply that any
decision has been taken under the influence of the Commission; as the Commission
is only an Advisory Body and it is for the Disciplinary Authority to apply its mind
subsequent to obtaining the Commission’s advice and take reasoned decisions on
each occasion. The Disciplinary Authorities are required to strictly follow the above
guidelines of the Commission at all stages.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

128
 No.003/VGL/31
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”
GPO Complex, I.N.A.,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 14th January, 2004

Office Order No. 3/1/04

Subject:- Disciplinary Cases Monitoring and Management Information System

(DCM&MIS)- Package for expeditious disposal of vigilance cases-
instructions regarding.

Sir/Madam,

Department of Personnel & Training, as part of Corruption Control

Mechanism has formulated a web based, Comprehensive Computerized Monitoring &
Management Information System for disciplinary cases and enabled the
Ministries/Departments/PSUs/Organizations that are under the control and monitoring system
of Central Vigilance Commissioner, to use by accessing it from the web site
http://persmin.nic.in. The package is intended to capture the critical steps of the
disciplinary proceedings and enable the Ministry/Department/PSUs/Organizations to monitor
the progress closely and to dispense with manual reporting mechanism. The features of the
package are versatile and helps the Chief Vigilance Officers to have grip over the progress of
various disciplinary proceeding/vigilance cases/complaints.

2. Department of Personnel & Training vide their circular dated 20.10.2003

issued detailed instructions with the roles and responsibilities of various agencies for
successful implementation. The Chief Vigilance Officer of the organization is the nodal
point who uses/maintains the package pertaining to that organization.

3. The Chief Vigilance Officers shall commence the use of this package
immediately and complete the data entry of the ongoing pending cases of disciplinary cases/
sanction for prosecution/complaints. The data entry should be completed by the end of
February, 2004. The concurrent entry of the cases shall be commenced immediately. The
progress of usage of this package will be reviewed from time to time by the CVC.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary
To

1. The Chief Vigilance Officers of all Ministries / Departments / PSUs /

Organizations.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training/ Secretary (Coordination),
Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi.

129
 No.003/MSC/12
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission

Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”

GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
Dated the 18th November, 2003
To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Sub: Reconciliation of data with the CVOs.

At many times, it has been observed that there is discrepancy in the

figures available with the Commission vis-à-vis concerned Ministries and
Departments while doing reconciliation of data with the CVOs. It is because of
that the Sections in the Commission are not following uniform data entry
methods in respect of this issue.

2. It is, therefore, clarified that for the purpose of reconciliation of data with
the CVOs, the following conditions have to be satisfied:

1. Pending implementation of first stage advice would mean,

a) In major penalty cases till the appointment order of the IO

is received.
b) In minor penalty cases till the order of imposition of penalty
is received.

2. Pending implementation of second stage advice would mean;

a) Till the order of imposition of penalty is received.

3. Cases may come for reconsideration at each of these stages however, they
would continue to be pending till either of the conditions (a) and (b) are
satisfied.

4. Attention is also invited to the Commission’s instruction No.

003/MMT/02 dated 7.1.2003. As regards format of the monthly report of CVOs
the item at S.No. 3 i.e. departmental inquiries, pertains with respect to
Commission’s cases only.
Contd….2/-
130
 -2-

5. The CVOs should separately mentioned about the cases of their

department if any, pending in the Commission for a long time. This information
may be added in the remarks column.

6. The above may be noted for compliance with regard to the submission of
monthly report by the CVOs to the Commission.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

131
 No.003/DSP/3
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block “A”

GPO Complex, I.N.A.
New Delhi –110023
Dated 15th September 2003

Office Order No. 51/9/03

To

(i) The Secretaries of All Ministries/Departments of Government of

India
(ii) The Chief Secretaries to All Union Territories
(iii) The Comptroller & Auditor General of India
(iv) The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission
(v) The Executives of All PSEs/Public Sector Banks/Insurance
Companies/Autonomous Organisations/Societies
(vi) The Chief Vigilance Officers in the
Ministries/Departments/PSEs./Public Sector Banks/Insurance
companies/Autonomous Organisations/Societies
(vii) President’s Secretariat/Vice-President’s Secretariat/Lok Sabha
Secretariat/Rajya Sabha Secretariat/PMO

Subject:- Need for self-contained speaking and reasoned order to be issued

by the authorities exercising disciplinary powers.

Sir/Madam,

It was clarified in the Department of Personnel & Administrative

Reforms’ OM No. 134/11/81/AVD -I dated 13.07.1981 that the disciplinary
proceedings against employees conducted under the provisions of CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, or under any other corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial in nature and
therefore, it is necessary that orders issued by such authorities should have the
attributes of a judicial order. It was also clarified that the recording of reasons in
support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the
decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy, or
reached on ground of policy or expediency. Such orders passed by the competent
disciplinary/appellate authority as do not contain the reasons on the basis whereof
the decisions communicated by that order were reached, are liable to be held invalid
if challenged in a court of law.

2. It is also a well-settled law that the disciplinary/appellate authority is

required to apply its own mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and to
come to its own conclusions, though it may consult an outside agency like the CVC.
There have been some cases in which the orders passed by the competent
authorities did not indicate application of mind, but a mere endorsement of the
Commission’s recommendations. In one case, the competent authority had merely

132
endorsed the Commission’s recommendations for dropping the proposal for criminal
proceedings against the employee. In other case, the disciplinary authority had
imposed the penalty of removal from service on an employee, on the
recommendations of the Commission, but had not discussed, in the order passed by
it, the reasons for not accepting the representation of the concerned employee on
the findings of the inquiring authority. Courts have quashed both the orders on the
ground of non-application of kind by the concerned authorities.

3. It is once again brought to the notice of all disciplinary/appellate

authorities that Disciplinary Authorities should issue a self-contained, speaking and
reasoned orders conforming to the aforesaid legal requirements, which must
indicate, inter-alia, the application of mind by the authority issuing the order.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

133
 No.98/MSC/23
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkata Bhawan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110 023
Dated the 1st August, 2003

OFFICE ORDER NO. 34/7/2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Utilising the services of outsiders including retired officers for conducting
Departmental inquiries.

Sir/Madam,

Please refer to the Commission’s letter of even number dated 25 th March 2003
on the above subject.

2. The rules applicable to public sector enterprises generally provide that the
disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the truth of any imputation of misconduct
against an employee, or appoint any public servant (called as inquiring authority) to inquire
into the truth thereof. The term “public servant” has been defined in the CDA rules, which
means and includes a person as mentioned in section 21 of the IPC. The retired employees of
the public sector undertakings do not fall within the definition of public servants as defined in
21 IPC and therefore cannot be appointed as inquiring authority unless the aforesaid
provision is suitably amended. Such public sector undertakings as have not amended the
aforesaid provision may take expeditious action to provide for appointment of retired public
servants as inquiring authorities.

3. Further, the Commission has also decided that keeping Para 2 above in view
the departments/public sector undertakings/organisations depending upon their need,
and if they so desire, may maintain a panel of retired officers from within or outside the
department or organization for appointment as inquiring authorities, in consultation
with the Chief Vigilance Officer. In case, there is difference of opinion between the
Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Vigilance Officer about the inclusion of any name
in the panel or appointment of any one out of the panel as IO in any case, the CVO may
report the matter to the next higher authority, or the CMD for the resolution of the
difference. If still unresol ved, the CVO may refer the matter to the CVC. A case of
difference of opinion between the CVO and the CMD, if acting as Disciplinary
Authority, may be referred to the Commission for its advice.

134
Contd./-
 -2-

4. Ithowever may be ensured that the offi cer appointed as inquiring authority
has no bias or/ and had no occasion to express an opinion at any stage of the preliminary
inquiry.

5. CVOs may bring this to the notice of all concerned.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Anjana Dube)
Deputy Secretary

135
 No.98/MSC/23
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Blcok ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi 110 023
Dated the 25th March 2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject:- Utilising the services of outsiders including retired officers for conducting
Departmental Inquiries.

Sir/Madam,

Attention is hereby invited to the instructions contained in the Commission’s circular

letter No.98-MSC-23 dated 29th November, 2002 on the subject cited above.

2. The matter relating to appointment of outsiders including retired officer as Inquiry

Officer has been considered further in the Commission and in supersession of all the
instructions issued on the subject, it has now been decided that the disciplinary authority may
appoint outsiders including retired officer as Inquiry Officer with the approval of the CVO.
In case the CVO does not agree to his appointment as Inquiry officer and the DA/
management insist on his appointment, only then the approval of the Commission should be
sought.

3. However, before doing so, the organizations should lay down clear cut guidelines for
appointment of Inquiry Officers.

4. In view of the aforesaid instructions, the Commission does not find the need to
maintain a centralized panel.

Yours faithfully,

-sd-
(MANGE LAL)
Deputy Secretary
Telefax- 24651010

136
 No.003/VGL/2
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 20th March 2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Reconciliation of figures of pending cases with the Deptt./Organisation.

Sir/Madam,

During the recent review meetings with the CVOs held in the Commission, it
was observed that there are differences in the list of cases shown pending in the records of the
Commission with that of the concerned department. One of the reasons appeared to be that
copies of charge sheet and penalty orders issued by the disciplinary authorities were not
endorsed to the Commission.

2. It has been decided that the CVO would tie up with the administrative wing of
the department/organisation concerned and would arrange to endorse copies of charge sheet
and the final orders passed, to the Commission invariably.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Mange Lal)
Deputy Secretary
Telefax- 24651010

137
 No.002/MSC/15
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 10th February 2003

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Entitlement of TA/DA to the private witnesses and the retired employees
appearing before departmental inquiry.

Sir,

It has come to the notice of the Commission that some of the organisations are
reluctant to pay TA/DA to their retired employees for appearance in de partmental inquiries. It
has also been noticed that some of the private persons, summoned to appear as witnesses, had
made payment of advance TA/DA a pre -condition for appearance.

2. The position regarding the payment of TA/DA to private persons or retir ed

employees appearing as defence witnesses has been provided in the Ministry of Finance U.O.
Note 3221-E IV(B)/61 dated 20.11.1961 and O.M. No. F.5(15) F.IV (B)/68 dated 15.09.1969
which inter-alia lay down that the private persons or retired employees appearing as
prosecution or defence witnesses in departmental inquiries including those conducted by the
Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries should be paid TA/DA. The Commission reiterates
these instructions and expects the organisations/departments to follow these scrupulously.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(Mange Lal)
Deputy Secretary
Telefax- 24651010

138
139
140
 No.001/VGL/82
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*******

Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110023.
Dated: 11 th February 2002

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Sub: Video taping of evidence.

Sir,

It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that in Indian Airlines,
departmental proceedings have been initiated and brought to successful completion in a case
which emanated from a complaint that an official had demanded illicit gratification from a
user. The crucial witness in the proceedings was the complainant who could not be
personally present; a videotape of the complaint was utilised in the proceedings and it was
considered sufficient to establish the case though preponderance of probability.

2. This is being brought to the notice of all concerned for similar action in such
situations.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(C.J. Mathew)
Deputy Secretary

141
 No.: 001/DSP/6
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
********
Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110023.
Dated the 2nd November, 2001.

To

The All Chief Vigilance Officers

Sub: Ensuring attendance by private witnesses in Departmental Inquiries.

Sir,

It has been observed that in many cases warranting initiation of major penalty
proceedings, the main impediment is the distinct possibility that private witnesses, who
are required to provide crucial evidence, are likely to evade appearance before the Inquiry
Authority.

2. The provisions of Departmental Inquires (Enforcement of Attendance of

witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 can be taken recourse to in such
cases. This Act is applicable to all inquiry proceedings where lack of integrity is a charge
or part of a charge. The inquiry authority authorised under the Act is conferred with the
powers of a trial court to summon witnesses/documents and such summons shall be
served through a District Judge. The authorisation to summon under the Act can be
issued only by the Central Govt. Therefore, wherever lack of integrity is a charge and
witnesses have to be compelled to attend, a proposal will have to be made to the Central
Govt. by the concerned inquiry authority for issue of a notification conferring the power
under the Act.

3. This may by resorted to when considered necessary.

4. This issues with the approval of the Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(C.J. Mathew)
Deputy Secretary

142
 No. 98/MSC/23
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkta Bhawan, Block “A”,

GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi.
Dated: 10th September 2001.

To

All Chief Vigilance Officer,

Public Sector Undertakings/Public Sector Banks.

Subject: Utilising the services of Retired Government Officer as Inquiry Officer in the
disciplinary proceedings against the employees of Banks/PSUs.

Sir,

This has reference to the CVC’s instructions vide No. 8(1)(h)/98(1) dated
18.11.98 regarding review of the cases pending for departmental inquiries and utilizing
the services of retired Government officers as Inquiry Officer for completing the
inquiry in time.

2. The Commission is reviewing the position. The following information is required in

this regard:-

(i) Whether PSUs/Banks have taken steps to amend the Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal Rules, so as to provide for appointment of retired officers as Inquiry
Officers.
(ii) If the answer to (i) above is in the affirmative whether they have operated the
panel prepared by the CVC.

3. It is requested the above mentioned information may be furnished to the

Commission on priority basis.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(C.J. Mathew)
Deputy Secretary

143
 001/VGL/5
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 25th April 2001

To

(i) Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments of Government of India.

(ii) Chief Executives of all PSEs/Public Sector Banks/Insurance Companies/
Autonomous Organisations/Societies.
(iii) CVOs of all Ministries/ Departments / Public Sector Undertakings/
Organisations.

Subject: Tackling corruption through a proper follow up of audit reports.

Sir,

Audit is an important tool available for proper control of organisations and the
office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has been envisaged as the body
established for carrying out the necessary checks and reporting of irregularities. It has,
however, been observed by the Commission that in response to CAG reports, apart from
replying to the office of CAG and to the Public Accounts Committee, no serious effort is
undertaken to identify the officials responsible and to initiate disciplinary proceedings, where
warranted. As a result, the audit exercise remains an unfulfilled one and irregularities
continue to be repeated.

2. The Commission has been in correspondence with CAG on this subject and it
has been decided that all serious cases of malpractices reported by the CAG which have a
perceived vigilance angle would be sent to the Commission for examination and follow up
action.

3. However, this does not absolve the Ministries, Departments and other
organisations of their administrative responsibility. It has, therefore, been decided that, in
future, all audit reports should be examined by the administrative head to identify the
officials responsible for the lapses. Initiation of disciplinary action should be the objective of
this examination and the matter is to be referred thereafter to the CVO for complying with the
procedure stipulated. Any audit report on which it has been decided that no action is to be
initiated is to be furnished, within three months of receipt, to the CVO for a further
examination. The CVO is to furnish quarterly data to the Commission about such cases.

This is issued for strict compliance by all concerned.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(C.J. Mathew)
Deputy Secretary

144
 No.000/VGL/166
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****

Satarkata Bhavan, Block "A"

GPO Complelx, I.N.A.,
New Delhi-110023
Dated the 16th January 2001

To

All CVOs of Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India/Nationalised Banks/

PSUs/Autonomous Bodies etc.

Subject: Advance copy of CVO investigation report to CVC.

Please refer to instructions issued under the Commission's Circular of even

number dated 9/11/2000 regarding advance copy of CVO investigation report to CVC.
Consequent upon the issue of the instructions, certain clarifications have been sought by
some Departments/Organisations on the issue. The matter has been considered in the
Commission and it is clarified as under:

i) The Commission's circular dated 9.11.2000 refers to investigations carried out

by the Vigilance Wing of the concerned Ministries/Departments/
Organisations into acts of omission and commission on the part of officers
coming within the purview of the Commission's jurisdiction.

ii) It is reiterated that notwithstanding the submission of advance copy by the

CVO, a separate reference in accordance with the usual procedure needs to be
made to the Commission to enable tendering of advice.

iii) CVOs are to furnish advance copies to the Secretary, Central Vigilance
Commission and not to the undersigned.

This issues with the approval of the Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(C.J.Mathew)
Deputy Secretary

145
 No.000/VGL/70
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkata Bhavan, Block "A",
GPO Complex, I.N.A.,
New Delhi - 110 023.
Dated 25th September 2000

Subject: - Suspension of public servants involved in criminal/

departmental proceedings.
*****

Suspension is an effective tool for checking corruption. There have been

many instances where senior officials, who had been trapped or were alleged to have
disproportionate wealth or who were facing charge sheets on other serious charges, had not
been suspended. It has also come to notice that officers charged of corruption, if not
suspended, manage to get their inquiries delayed because delay in criminal/departmental
proceedings enables them to continue in service even though the charges against them are
grave enough to deserve the punishment of dismissal from service. Such officials can also
use the opportunity of continuance in service for earning money through illegal/corrupt
means. The Commission, therefore, is of the view that officers facing criminal/ departmental
proceedings on serious charges of corruption should be placed under suspension as early as
possible and their suspension should not be revoked in a routine manner.

2. It has been provided in para 2.4, Chapter V of the Vigilance Manual, Volume-
I, that public interest should be the guiding factor in deciding whether, or not, a public
servant should be placed under suspension; or whether such action should be taken even
while the matter is under investigation and before a prima-facie case has been established.
The instructions provide that it would be appropriate to place a person under suspension if: -

(i) the continuance of the public servant in office is likely to prejudice

investigation, trial or inquiry [apprehending tampering with
documents or witness]; or

(ii) where the continuance in office of the public servant is likely to

seriously subvert discipline in the office in which he is working;

(iii) where the continuance in office of the public servant will be against
the wider public interest, e.g., if there is a public scandal and it is
considered necessary to place the public servant under suspension to
demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers
involved in such scandals, particularly corruption;

146
 -2-

(iv) where the investigation has revealed a prima-facie case justifying

criminal/departmental proceedings which are likely to lead to his
conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from
service; or

(v) where the public servant is suspected to have engaged himself in

activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State.

3. Para 2.5, Chapter V of the Vigilance Manual, Volume-I also lays down that it
may be considered desirable to suspend a public servant for misdemeanor of the following
types: -

(i) an offence or conduct involving moral turpitude;

(ii) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money,

possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers for
personal gains;

(iii) serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable

loss to Government;

(iv) desertion of duty; and

(v) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior

officers.

[In case of types (iii), (iv) and (v) discretion should be exercised with care].

4. It has also been provided in para 17 of the "Directive on investigation of cases

by the Special Police Establishment Division of the CBI" that the CBI would recommend
suspension of the concerned employees in appropriate cases.

5. The Central Vigilance Commission has been empowered, vide para 3 (v) of
the Government of India's Resolution No.371/20/99-AVD.III dated 4 th April 1999, to
exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of various Ministries of the
Central Government or Corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government
Companies, Societies and local authorities, owned or controlled by that Government. Since
the suspension of a public servant on serious charges, like corruption, is directly related to the
vigilance administration, the Commission hereby desires that all disciplinary authorities
should follow the instructions enumerated in paras 2, 3 and 4 supra strictly. It also desires
that if the CBI recommends suspension of a public servant and the competent authority does
not propose to accept the CBI's recommendation in that regard, it may be treated as a
case of difference of opinion between the CBI and the administrative authority and the
matter may be referred to the Commission for its advice. It also directs that if a

147
 -3-

person had been suspended on the recommendations of the CBI, the CBI may be consulted if
the administrative authority proposes to revoke the suspension order.

6. These instructions are available on the CVC's web-site http://cvc.nic.in

To

1. The Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments of Government of India.

2. The Chief Secretaries to All Union Territories.
3. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
4. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission.
5. The Chief Executives of All PSEs/Public Sector Banks/ Insurance
Companies/Autonomous Organisations/ Societies.
6. The Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/
Departments/PSEs/Public Sector Banks/Insurance
Companies/Autonomous Organisations/Societies.
7. President's Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat/Lok Sabha
Secretariat/Rajya Sabha Secretariat/PMO.
8. Director, CBI.
9. Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi.

148
 Confidential

No.3M-VGL-3
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
********

Satarkata Bhawan,
GPO Complex,
Block-A, INA,
New Delhi - 23.
Dated 7th April 2000

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Powers and functions of the Central vigilance Commission in relation to

autonomous bodies 'other than the public sector undertakings' under various
Ministries/Departments.
********

The Commission, vide its OM No. DM-VGL-10 dated 18.10.1984, had

advised all Ministries/Departments of Government of India that the vigilance cases against
those officials of autonomous bodies, which did not fall in the category of public sector
undertakings or local bodies and also whose employees could not be considered to be
Government servants, drawing basic pay of Rs.1000/- per month and above might be referred
to the Commission for advice. Such bodies included those set up by Acts of Parliament, or
registered under the Societies Act, or those set up in some other manner such as a Resolution
of the Government.

2. The above pay limit of Rs.1000/- was based on the pay pattern recommended
by the Third Pay Commission. The aforesaid pay limit for reference to the Commission was
revised to Rs.2825/- for those organisations, who had revised their pay-scale on the pattern of
the recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission [para 5.4 of Chapter I of the Vigilance
Manual, Volume-I refers]. Consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of
Fifth Pay Commission, the Commission has reviewed the aforesaid pay limit and has decided
that the cases against those officials of autonomous bodies/cooperative societies etc., who are
in receipt of basic pay of Rs.8700/- per month and above may be referred to the Commission
for advice.

(K.L. Ahuja)
Officer on Special Duty

To

(1) The Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments of Government of India.

(2) The CVOs of all autonomous organisations/cooperative societies within the
purview of the Commission.

149
 No.3(v)/99/8
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
*****

Satarkta Bhavan, Block "A"

GPO Complex, I.N.A.
New Delhi-110023
Dated the 5th October,1999.

Subject:- Drafting of charge- sheet.

Inadequate skill in drafting the charge-sheet is one of the reasons which

help the charged officials to get away with lapses/misconduct committed by them.
Many cases fail before the Courts of Law just because of the defective framing of
charge-sheets. It has been observed by the Commission that the chargesheets are
sometimes framed in a very general way and the existing practice with regard to
framing of charges and imputations vary widely. Sometimes the charge itself is framed
in a very general way, only pointing out that the official concerned has acted in an
unbecoming manner or has shown lack of devotion to duty or has acted without
integrity. The real issues, in such circumstances, are to be found in the statement of
imputations. It has also been observed by the Commission that the
organisations/Ministries etc. while framing the charge sheets list serious
irregularities/charges in the imputations but do not mention the same in the articles of
charge. Many a times the charges are not framed in accordance with the advice given
by the Commission, thereby diluting the central issues.

2. Rule 14(3)(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules stipulates that "the substance of
the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into distinct articles of charge" should
be drawn up by the Disciplinary Authority whenever it is proposed to hold an enquiry
against a Government servant. This would mean that no charge can be proper or
complete without including therein elements of the main content of the
allegations/imputations. Therefore, the spirit of all Conduct, Discipline & Appeal
Rules imply that there should be a specific finding on each allegation made against the
officer. At the end, the IO must then apply his mind to come to a conclusion as to
whether the charge as a whole has been proved wholly, partially or not at all.

3. It has to be understood that the statement of imputations/allegations

annexed are supplementary/supportive material to the charge sheet; they are details of
facts/evidence to support the charges made, and should contain names of
witnesses/documents in support of the charges. That is, the statement of imputations is
to make the basis of the charge, allegation-wise, precise and specific and should include
details of what exactly each witness/document is going to prove regarding every
charge. Each charge should also have a separate statement of imputations of

Page 1 of 3

150
misbehaviour/misconduct. The common failing of listing out one long statement of
misconduct/misbehaviour ought to be avoided.

4. The Commission has also issued instructions earlier which are

reproduced in Para 14.1 to 14.3 of Chapter X of Vigilance Manual Part I stipulating
that the articles of charge should be framed with great care. Broad guidelines as to how
the articles of charge should be framed have also been indicated therein. Similarly, the
common mistakes which have been noticed by the Commission in framing the
chargesheet have also been incorporated in Para 12.1.3 of the special Chapter on
Vigilance Management in Banks and Para 20.1.3 in the Special Chapter in PSEs.
These are reproduced below:-

"Special care has to be taken while drafting a chargesheet. A charge of

lack of devotion to duty or integrity or unbecoming conduct should be
clearly spelt out and summarised in the Articles of charge. It should be
remembered that ultimately the IO would be required to give his specific
findings only on the Articles as they appear in the chaergesheet. The
Courts have struck down chargesheets on account of the charges framed
being general or vague (S.K. Raheman Vs. State of Orissa 60 CLT 419.)
If the charge is that the employee acted out of an ulterior motive that
motive must be specified (Uttar Pradesh Vs. Salig Ram AIR 1960 All
543). Equally importantly, while drawing a charge sheet, special care
should be taken in the use of language to ensure that the guilt of the
charged official is not pre-judged or pronounced upon in categorical
terms in advance (Meena Jahan Vs. Deputy Director, Tourism 1974
2SLR 466 Cal). However, the statement merely of a hypothetical or
tentative conclusion of guilt in the charge, will not vitiate the charge
sheet (Dinabandhu Rath Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1960 Orissa 26 cf. Also
Powari Tea Estate Vs. Barkataki (M.K.) 1965 Lab LJ 102)".

5. Notwithstanding the extant instructions/guidelines many organisations

continue to make avoidable mistakes while framing the charge sheets. Therefore, it is
reiterated that the extant instructions on the subject as stated in the aforesaid paras may
be followed carefully while drafting the charge sheet, in order to avoid subsequent
difficulties. The CVOs of the organisations/Ministries etc. should ensure that these
instructions are implemented scrupulously.

6. In addition as already summarised above, an IO is required to give his

finding in respect of each article of charge and reasons thereof. As the articles of
charge are definite and distinct substance of the statement of imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour, the findings on each articles of charge have to be inter-alia based on
statement of imputations. Therefore, the Inquiry Officers are required to record their
findings in respect of each allegation framed in support of an article of charge in order
to ensure that inquiry reports do not suffer due to deficiencies.

151
Page 2 of 3
7. All CVOs may ensure strict compliance of the above instructions.
CVOs are also instructed to carry out an exercise on their own in respect of cases where
the Commission has tendered its first stage advice to ensure that the articles of charge
and statement of imputations are in conformity with the advice. The CVOs of
Ministries can also check charge sheets in a random manner during their
visits/inspections.

8. This instruction is available in the website of CVC at http://cvc.nic.in.

TO

(i) The Secretaries of All Ministries/Departments of Government of India.

(ii) The Chief Secretaries to All Union Territories.
(iii) The Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
(iv) The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission.
(v) All Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/Departments/PSEs/Public Sector
Banks/Insurance Companies/Autonomous Organisations/Societies.
(vi) President's Secretariat/Vice-President's Secretariat/Lok Sabha Secretariat/Rajya
Sabha Secretariat/PMO.
(vii) The Director/CBI, New Delhi.

152

Page 3 of 3
 Immediate

No.98/MSC/23
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A',
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi - 110 023
Dated the 16th September, 1999

To

All Chief Vigilance Officers

Subject: Utilising the services of retired officers for conducting Departmental

Inquiries.

Sir,

As you are aware the Commission, in order to ensure that the departmental
inquiries are completed in time, had advised all Departments/Organisations vide its
instruction No. 8(1)(h)/98(1) dated 18.11.98 to immediately review all pending cases and
appoint IOs from among retired Government Officers. In the said instruction, the
Commission had interalia stated that it would build a panel of officers for this purpose.

2. Accordingly, after verifying the antecedents of Retired Officers, the

Commission has built a database. The details of retired officers who have been empanelled
by the Commission as on date is enclosed. The terms and conditions formulated by the
Commission for appointing these officers is also enclosed.

3. This is brought to the notice of all concerned in order to utilise the services of
the empanelled retired officers of IOs.

4. This instruction as well as the panel of retired officers and the terms and
conditions are available on the web site of CVC as http://cvc.nic.in. The panel will be
updated from time to time in the web site, which can be downloaded. Those
Departments/Organisations who do not have Internet facility may approach the Commission
for the updated panel.

153
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPOINTING
RETIRED OFFICERS AS INQUIRY OFFICERS

The Retired Government Officer, hereinafter, referred to as

Inquiry Officer (IO):

1. should not be more than 70 years of age as on the 1st July of the
year of his empanelment;

2. should be in sound health, physically and mentally;

3. shall not engage himself/herself in any other professional work or

service, which is likely to interfere with the performance of his/her
duties as Inquiry Officer;

4. shall be appointed as IOs by the Disciplinary authority of the

Charged Officer whose case is entrusted to him/her;

5. will be entrusted with the Inquiries on 'Case-to-case' basis, by the

Disciplinary authority;

6. shall maintain strict secrecy in relation to the documents he/she

receives or information/data collected by him/her in connection
with the Inquiry and utilise the same only for the purpose of Inquiry
in the case entrusted to him/her. No such documents/information
or data are to be divulged to any one during the Inquiry or after
presentation of the Inquiry Report. The I.O. entrusted with the
Inquiries will be required to furnish an undertaking to maintain strict
secrecy and confidentiality of all records/documents/ proceedings
etc. All the records, reports etc. available with the I.O. shall be
duly returned to the authority which appointed him/her as such, at
the time of presentation of the Inquiry Report;

7. shall be paid a lumpsum remuneration of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five

thousand only), per Departmental Inquiry Report, in a case, by the
Department/Organisation to which the charged officer belongs;

8. shall be paid, in addition to the remuneration of Rs.5000/-, an

amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per
Departmental Inquiry Report, for clerical and Stenographic work,
which the IO has to arrange by himself/herself.

154
9. will be entitled, besides the above, reimbursement of Rs.500/-
(Rupees five hundred only) as Conveyance Charges, per
Departmental Inquiry Report (applicable only if the place of Inquiry
is a 'A' or 'B-1" class cities);

10. shall conduct the inquiry proceedings only in the office premises of
the Department/Organisation, which engages him/her.

11. the inquiry proceedings are to be conducted at the headquarters of

the Departments/Organisations or at the place of concentration of
the charged officer(s), witnesses etc. In unavoidable
circumstances where the Inquiry Officer has to undertake travel for
conducting inquiry, the rate of TA/DA in such cases may be
permissible to the rate applicable to the serving officers of
equivalent rank;

12. shall be provided with a room with furniture and lockable almirahs
by the concerned Department/Organisation, which engages
him/her on the days of Inquiry;

13. shall be provided with the stationery/postage by the

Department/Organisation, which engages him/her;

14. shall be terminated from the services of an IO at any time by the

Appointing Authority, without notice and without assigning any
reasons. However, the concerned authority has to intimate the
Central Vigilance Commission the reasons for doing so that the
Commission can take in to account those things while reviewing
the panel; and

15. shall submit the inquiry report after completing the inquiry within
six months from the date of his appointment as Inquiry Officer to
become eligible for payment of remuneration as indicated at item
No. 7 to 9.

155
 IMMEDIATE

No.8(1)(h)/98(3)
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road

New Delhi – 110 011
Dated the 27th November 98.

Sub: Sanction of Prosecution

The Central Vigilance Commission, while reviewing the overall
functioning of the vigilance administration of the Departments/Organisations
has observed that one of the methods of improving the vigilance functions is to
give prompt clearance for sanction for Prosecution under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The Supreme Court has also in the case of Vineet Narain and
others Vs. Government of India directed that a time limit of 3 months in grant
of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However,
additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is
required with the Attorney General or any other Law Officer in the AG’s
Office. Subsequently, the Commission had also issued instructions vide its
letter No.98/VGL/7 dated the 12th March,1998,directing all
Ministries/Departments / Organisations to furnish their comments on CBI
reports within 30 days of the receipt of CBI reports in respect of prosecution
and disciplinary cases. Notwithstanding these directions/instructions, delays on
the part of the disciplinary/administrative authorities in the cases of sanction of
prosecution continue to exist.

2. The Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance 1998 under Section

8(1)(f) directs that the power and function of the CVC will be:

“to review the progress of applications pending with the competent

authorities for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988”

3. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred on CVC under Section

8(1)(f) in conjunction with Section 8(1)(h) of the CVC Ordinance 1998, it is
hereby directed that:
156 Page 1 of 2
 (i) In respect of CBI reports/cases in which the Commission’s
advice is not necessary, the competent authorities may exercise their
mind and give or refuse sanction for prosecution under the PC Act,
within the time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of request
from CBI; and

(ii) In respect of the cases of Presidential appointees, in which the

Commission’s advice is required, the competent authorities may
furnish their comments within 30 days to the Commission and give
the sanction of prosecution or otherwise, within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of request from CBI.

4. If at the end of the above said time limits no decision had been
given by the competent authorities, then the CVC will take an adverse view
and deem it as a case of misconduct on the part of the competent authority.

5. This comes into force with immediate effect.

(N.VITTAL)
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER

To

(i) The Secretaries of All Ministries/Deptts. of Government of India.

(ii) The Chief Secretaries to all Union Territories.
(iii) The Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
(iv) The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission.
(v) The Director, CBI
(vi) All Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/ Departments/ PSEs/
Public Sector Banks/ Insurance Companies/ Autonomous
Organisations/Societies.
(vii) President’s Secretariat/Vice-President’s Secretariat/ Lok Sabha
Secretariat/Rajya Sabha Secretariat/PMO.

Page 2 of 2

157
158