Mired in technicalities

State Vigilance Commission has not been able to function to capacity for the reason that it has not adequate manpower at its service to handle the business assigned to it. It has been asking the Government to provide Senior Prosecuting Officers and Prosecuting Officers so that inquiry and investigation could be expedited in respect of criminal cases pending with it for a long time, and also at anti-corruption courts. Home Department has refused to provide prosecuting officers from Police Department on the plea that the Police Department is already short of these personnel and cannot spare their services either for the State Vigilance Commission or the courts established under the Act.
This is one part of the status report submitted by the Principal Secretary Home to the High Court in response to its previous order. The second part of the status report deals with almost identical issue of paucity of legal manpower in the State Accountability Commission. The discourse of the Principal Secretary Home has been different in the two cases.
In regard to the State Vigilance Commission, the question is whether the Act by which the SVC came into being provides for prosecuting staff for the Commission or not. If we interpret the clauses of the said Act rightly, it will be found that the Home Department is supposed to provide the requisite legal manpower on deputation from the Police Department. There is no provision in the Act that in case the Home Department is unable to provide legal manpower either from the Police Department or from other source, then such posts will be created in the Commission and filled according to the established procedure. If that provision is not there then the Home Department is obliged to provide them with adequate legal manpower. The Home Department is now stating that the Police Department has already shortage of prosecuting officers and cannot spare them for the SVC. Why did not the Home Department not ask for recruitment of additional manpower all these years so that the task of SVC would have been made smoother?
Now taking the second part of the case into consideration, the Department has submitted to the court that there is no provision in the State Accountability Commission Act for providing legal staff to assist it. However, the Home Department would be making available officers on deputation to assist the Accountability Commission. It is difficult to understand how any Commission meant to care for the accountability of public servants can carry forward its work without conducting inquiry and investigation into cases referred to it?  This is a diarchic approach and not considered healthy sign of governance. Secondly the Accountability Commission was established way back in 2002. If the stand of the Home Department is to be accepted, the question arises why it has not provided manpower for last one decade and more? Why it slept over the matter and thus caused serious setback to the functioning of the administration with efficiency. It is only after the intervention of the court that the Home Department has selected panel of six officers including two IGPs and one DIG to the Commission for its investigation wing. The question is that State Accountability Commission is not functioning on adhoc basis but is a regular institution that has to be there for all times.
The question is that both organizations, SVC and SAC were incepted with the essential purpose of controlling and eradicating corruption and inefficiency and other irregularities in the administration. The Government has been strictly following the legal procedure in the case. The State cannot be partial or vindictive in any respect. It has to give the indicted person sufficient time and facility to defend itself against charges leveled by the State. After this is done, the case will take its natural course and the indicted person will be dealt with in accordance with the investigation made and law established.  If these agencies are involved in technicalities that will never be resolved satisfactorily, it is tantamount to allowing corruption and misrule to have a field day. We cry at the top of our voice that there should be accountability. But when the time comes to act, we are hampered by technical hitches.
The fact is that State Government has not done its work when the two Acts were under discussion of the Cabinet. It should have specified that both of these organizations will need independent investigating agency and they should be provided the same if they are to function efficiently. It should have set some time frame for lending prosecution staff from the Police Department after the expiry of which the organizations would function independently with their respective cadres.
The solution to this angle is that in the first place recruitment to 98 vacancies which the Home Department has identified in Police Department should be expeditiously filled even if some relaxation of norms of recruitment has to be made. If these vacancies are filled within next three months, it would go a long way in removing the hurdles in the process of prosecuting. At the same time the Home         Department shall have to show greater measure of cooperation to overcome the roadblock.  It must, as a measure of emergency, spare some prosecuting officers and personnel from the Police Department for a limited time, say till recruitment is made formally at existing vacancies. Taking hard stances does not help. It can also be suggested that the Home Department requisition the services of a dozen or two of retired senior prosecution officers and prosecution officers on contractual basis for a specific time till the advertised vacancies are properly filled.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here