Complaints piling up for disposal in absence of Director
Many IPS officers not ready to hold ‘weakened’ post
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Mar 31: The complaints from different quarters about corruption in the State administration are piling up for disposal in the J&K Anti-Corruption Bureau as Government has failed to appoint its new Director during the past over one month. Moreover, several senior IPS officers are showing reluctance to hold the post, which as per their opinion, has been ‘weakened’ due to conflict between the State Vigilance Commission Act and Rules.
The post of Director Anti-Corruption Bureau had fallen vacant on February 23, 2019 when IPS officer of 1994 batch S J M Gillani was repatriated from the Anti-Corruption Bureau and posted as Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Armed, J&K.
“Since then not only the disposal of already filed complaints has come to the grinding halt even decision on new complaints is getting delayed as under Vigilance Manual Director Anti-Corruption Bureau is the only competent authority to decide the fate of the complaints received from different quarters”, official sources told EXCELSIOR.
As per the practice in vogue in the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), all the Branch SPs are required to forward all the complaints received by them directly from the complainants to the Director ACB for obtaining further orders. Moreover, several complaints are directly lodged with the Director ACB either by the private complainants or by the heads of the Government departments.
“Only Director Anti-Corruption Bureau is the competent authority to decide whether Joint Surprise Check is to be conducted on the basis of the complaints or Preliminary Enquiry or formal FIR is to be registered”, sources said, adding “open verification, secret verification and miscellaneous verification are also recommended only by the Director after going through the complaints. Even referring of matter to the Departmental Vigilance Officers (DVOs) is exclusively the domain of the Director”.
“Despite such an importance of the Director Anti-Corruption Bureau the Government has failed to fill the vacant post during the past over one month”, sources said while disclosing that in the absence of Director complaints are piling up for disposal, which also amounts to slowing down the drive against the corruption in the administration.
Though Director Prosec-ution in Anti-Corruption Bureau is looking into certain complaints yet he cannot exercise the powers of the Director, which is the post of Additional Director General of Police rank. Moreover, there is neither Inspector General of Police nor Deputy Inspector General of Police in the Anti-Corruption Bureau as these posts are lying vacant during the past many years.
They disclosed that many senior IPS officers are showing reluctance to hold the post of Director Anti-Corruption Bureau, which as per their opinion, has been ‘weakened’ due to conflict between Jammu and Kashmir State Vigilance Commission Act and Rules. “Under the Rules, Director Anti-Corruption Bureau has been made answerable for each and every aspect to the State Vigilance Commission”, sources said.
This can be gauged from the perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act in comparison to the Rules. Section 8 of the Act states: “The Commission will exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (formerly State Vigilance Organization) in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act or an offence with which a public servant may under the Code of Criminal Procedure be charged at the same trial”.
“The Commission will give directions to the ACB for the purpose of discharging the reasonability entrusted to it under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While exercising the powers of superintendence under Clause-A or giving directions under this clause, the Commission shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as to require the ACB to investigate or dispose of any case in a particular manner”, the Section 8 further read.
However, J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules state: “It shall be obligatory on the part of Director ACB to ensure that once a case is registered or preliminary enquiry is ordered a copy of FIR or PE along with the copy of complaint as the case may, is transmitted to the State Vigilance Commission within 24 hours”.
“Moreover, Director ACB shall submit the progress reports on monthly basis in all under investigation cases and preliminary enquiries to the Commission as per the proforma devised by the Commission”, the Rules further read.
“This conflict between Act and Rules amounts to weakening the authority of the Director Anti-Corruption Bureau”, sources said while stressing that Government should make necessary changes in the Rules so as to ensure that Director ACB functions independently but at the same time remains under the superintendence of the Commission strictly as per the provisions of the Act.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
