Citizens' Issues
DoPT seeks opinion from chief secretaries on prosecuting corrupt officials
As a sequel to a 2012 Supreme Court judgment wherein Subramanian Swamy was the petitioner, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), is seeking opinion from chief secretaries on how to empower a common man to take on corrupt babus. In a judgement on 30 January 2016 (Civil Appeal No1193 of 2012), the Supreme Court had observed, “Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it.’’
 
Hence, the DoPT, in its circular dated 21 July 2016 has sought the opinion of chief secretaries of all States, by 12th August on its draft version of citizen empowerment to prosecute officers from the Indian Administrative Services (IAS). The circular gives reference of the SC judgment in the Civil Appeal (No.1193 of 2012 (in SLP (C) No.27535 of 2010) in the Dr Subramanian Swamy versus Dr Manmohan Singh case. It says, “It has been decided to solicit public opinion/ comments in respect of processing of proposals/ requests received from private persons for sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer serving in the State Government/ Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.”
 
The DoPT has provided the draft instructions for the perusal of these top bureaucrats of every state and union territory and asked them to send their proposals, in case they do not agree with the opinion of this draft version.
 
As per the recommendations of the SC, the DoPT says that a complaint from a citizen, even if it is without documents or any other proof, should be taken seriously. The relevant authority must reply to the citizen within three months of his complaint. However, in case the citizen is not satisfied with the reply, he is free to seek legal advice. 
 
Following is the draft sent by the DoPT:
 
  • The Apex Court further observed that "If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy".
     
  • It was also observed by the Supreme Court in the matter that, “At the same time, we deem it proper to observe that in future every Competent Authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant, so as to ident0 and obviate the areas causing delays in processing of such proposals ...”
     
  • Pursuant to the decision, this Department is in receipt of requests from private persons seeking sanction for prosecution in respect of officers for which DoPT is the Cadre Controlling Authority without any proper proposal and supporting documents.
     
  • It is observed that such requests, as are received from citizens are more in the nature of complaints sans any supporting details, evidence, which can at best merit inquiry of substantial facts as are evidenced i.e. such requests are without any proposal and supporting documents. 
     
  • In this connection, it may be appropriate to stress that, the Competent Authority has to take a decision as regards grant or otherwise of a sanction for prosecution requested for, in terms of provisions of section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
     
  • The existing guidelines as are already in place to consider such cases received from investigating agencies. The instructions have been issued vide letter No.142/4/2012-AVD.I dated 28 July 2014 and 20 May 2016. These guidelines lay down the procedure to deal with the proposals received from investigating agencies through Single window system.
     
  • Keeping in view the basic parameters and requirements for cases received from investigating agencies, it has been decided that the procedure for handling the requests for prosecution sanction received from the private persons may be streamlined as indicated below.
 
a) A proposal from a private individual seeking sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer serving in the State Government may be routed through the concerned State Government as such State government is best placed to provide basic inputs as regards the alleged misconduct of the concerned public servant who is or was working under its administrative control. 
 
b) In case a proposal is received directly by DoPT by such private individuals will be forwarded to the State Governments for the preliminary examination by such State Government vis-à-vis the relevant records.
 
c) If there is a prima facie case against an IAS officer, the State Government should prepare a detailed report and consider obtaining the version of the concerned officer. Such report, along with all relevant records, and evidence should be forwarded to DoPT with the approval of the Competent Authority in the State Government.
 
d) In case the concerned State Government, after examination of relevant records, and other evidence is of the view that prima facie no case is made out of any alleged misconduct which may constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, that State Government shall inform the person who has made a request for sanction for prosecution under the said act and endorse a copy of the same to this Department.
 
e) If a report, along with all relevant records and evidence with the approval of the concerned authority is received, wherein a prima facie case is made out, the same will be treated as a proposal as per existing procedures/ guideline issued vide letter no.142/4/2012-AVD. I dated 28 July 2014 and 20 May 2016 to initiate action for processing the matter for decision of the competent authority.
 
f) A period of three months period for disposing of such proposals would commence from the date of receipt of complete proposal with all relevant material and the aforesaid report from the concerned State Governments. 
 
Here is the circular issued by the DoPT…
 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)

User

COMMENTS

N.Hanumanta Rao

4 months ago

If the State/Central Govt.is the CA to sanction, the Govt.will certainly protect their Civil servants, and hence the Bonus go scot-free. Ironically such corrupt Babus get promotions and plum posts, being favorites of the rulingparty.

Avinash Murkute

5 months ago

Opinion what opinion! They did not act when everything is crystal clear and thus protected Bribe Generation.

manoharlalsharma

5 months ago

It is impressive to read but tough to follow as age factors for inordinate delay in implement as we read 2012 order in 2016,do u know to get a Housing Society NOC we 316 members r awaiting 14-15 years as off QUASI JUDICIAL orders cancelled or Stayed by Concerned ministers and ultimately we again in HC with WP-8508/2003 the order was issued against the HC order WP-4481/2001,so peoples compel to pay BRIBE or SALE at discount rather then go to HC.

N.Hanumanta Rao

5 months ago

The IAS/IPS have strong unity among themselves. For example, a Chartered Accountant is an authority in Taxation, Audit,enterprise value, transfer pricing and accounts. However, B.A/Bcom passed IAS puts such subordinates to insult/inconvenience. Further more, if the competent authority is the Central/State Govts. They protect their officers and never give sanction for prosecution. In fact at least 50℅ of AIS officers have ill-gotten money worth crores. They cite the example of their political bosses who own more than 200crores each.From my personal experience I can say that a former MLA/M.P. will maintain a cavalcade of 4/5 Tata Sumos.

Hence seeking sanction from State/Central Govts is but farce.

Sudhir Jatar

5 months ago

A very lucidly written article. However, our experience is that the hurdle is not in initiating a case but in getting it to conclusion in a court of law. In most of the PILs, it is some bureaucrat or another accountable for the wrongs, which result in corruption. However cases go on for decades and we are told, the bureaucracy is so swift as to ensue that cases do not even come up for hearing for years on end until the bureaucrat retires. So why not first carry out judicial reforms so that cases are expedited. But we have here a government, which is in confrontation with the highest judiciary and objects to appointments of judges recommended by the Collegium.

Uproar in Parliament over AAP MP's video, Lok Sabha adjourned till Monday
Lok Sabha proceedings were adjourned till Monday by Speaker Sumitra Mahajan after pandemonium in the House as members, rising above party lines, demanded immediate action against AAP member Bhagwant Mann for circulating a video of security zones in Parliament's premises.
 
As the House reassembled after 12 noon, members were up on their feet demanding action against the lawmaker from Sangrur in Punjab while the Speaker allowed tabling of papers by ministers and members as listed in the day's agenda.
 
Amid noisy scenes, the Speaker said she has received separate notices of privilege against Mann as also requests for adjournment of House proceedings to raise the issue.
 
Mahajan said among others Kirit Somaiya, Maheish Giri, Udit Raj (all BJP) and Prem Singh Chandumajra (Akali Dal) had given privilege motion notices against Mann while Biju Janata Dal leader B. Mahtab has given a complaint note against the AAP member.
 
Other members including Chandrakant Khere (Shiv Sena) demanded time to speak on the issue in the House.
 
Speaker said the matter raised by members was "very serious" as Parliament had earlier witnessed a terror attack where 13 security personal had been killed in 2001. "Some action needs to be taken, I agree. I will consider the matter," she said.
 
However, members remained unsatisfied and demanded immediate action against the member.
 
R.K Singh of BJP said the AAP MP should be suspended immediately as Mann has told the media that he would "again put such video footage" on social networking websites.
 
B. Mahtab (Biju Janata Dal) said the matter was more serious than mere breach of privilege and security as he believed the video was not circulated "out of mere foolishness or ignorance".
 
"A separate committee must be set up by the Speaker," he demanded.
 
He recalled that 13 people had laid down their lives protecting Parliament premises and members on December 13, 2001 when terrorists attacked the temple of democracy.
 
"The matter was so serious that Sonia Gandhi who was not present in the House then had called up the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and enquired about the incident," Mahtab said.
 
Congress floor leader Mallikarjun Kharge too echoed the same sentiment of the members and maintained that such actions should not be allowed to go on as it concerned the security of parliament and democracy.
 
"Such actions should be condemned and actions taken as Indian Parliament is the place where representatives of 125 crore Indians come," Kharge said.
 
However despite requests from the chair as ruckus continued the Speaker adjourned the proceedings till Monday, July 25.
 
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha, that met briefly around 12.30 p.m., was later adjourned till 2.30 pm. 
 
Mann on Thursday shot a video clip of his journey from home to Parliament, including going past the various security pickets, and uploaded it on the social media, drawing flak from various quarters for putting Parliament security in peril.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

IAF plane with 29 on board missing
An AN-32 aircraft of the Indian Air Force with 29 people on board went missing over the Bay of Bengal on Friday, Defence Ministry officials said.
 
The aircraft was flying from Chennai to Port Blair. Those on board included six crew members. 
 
Officials said it was “courier flight" with service personnel on board. 
 
A major search and rescue operation has been launched by the Indian Navy in the Bay of Bengal. 
 
Navy officials said that one P-8I surveillance aircraft, one Dornier and four ships have been deployed in the search and rescue operation and more assets are being dispatched.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)