SVC, Govt fail to strengthen institution of CVOs, DVOs
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Apr 28: Despite sufficient provisions under Jammu and Kashmir State Vigilance Commission Rules, keeping strict watch on corrupt practices in the Government departments and Public Sector Undertakings has remained a least priority for the State administration. Moreover, the Vigilance Commission is acting as mute spectator to unsatisfactory functioning of the Chief Vigilance Officers and Departmental Vigilance Officers, who otherwise have a key role to play in eradicating the menace.
Official sources told EXCELSIOR that in order to ensure better vigilance administration there is a provision under Jammu and Kashmir State Vigilance Commission Rules to appoint Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) at administrative department level, Departmental Vigilance Officer (DVO) at Directorate and Head of Department level and District Vigilance Officer in respect of the offices of all Government departments at district level.
As per Rule 26 of the State Vigilance Commission Rules, it is the duty and responsibility of the Chief Vigilance Officers, Departmental Vigilance Officers and District Vigilance Officers to collect intelligence about the corrupt practices committed or likely to be committed by the employees of their respective organizations.
Moreover, they are supposed to take steps to prevent commission of improper practices/misconduct and also analyze functioning/performance of the departments in reference to the Result Framework Document.
However, this detailed mechanism has failed to yield desirable results till date mainly because of the non-serious approach of the State Government as well as State Vigilance Commission, sources said. While Government never wanted this mechanism to work effectively for obvious reasons, the Commission has failed to exercise its powers to extract required information from the CVOs and DVOs despite having superintendence over them, they added.
“The CVOs and DVOs are only acting on the complaints forwarded to them by the State Vigilance Commission but there are very few instances which indicate that CVOs and DVOs have voluntarily gathered any information about improper practices and misconduct, undertaken suo-moto enquiries and then forwarded the reports to the Commission for advice about further action”, sources informed.
They further disclosed, “there is hardly any report of the Legislative Committees or a finding of the audit on which appropriate action has been taken by CVOs or DVOs despite the fact that Sub-Section 2 of Rule 26 of the State Vigilance Commission Rules states that it shall be the duty of the CVOs and DVOs to scrutinize reports of Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee and Committee on Public Undertakings, audit reports and complaints and allegations appearing in the media to take appropriate action thereon”.
“It is a matter of concern that neither Government nor Vigilance Commission is initiating steps to strengthen the mechanism of vigilance administration in the departments and PSUs through CVOs and DVOs, who as per the Rules, are even competent to have the cases registered in the Police Stations failing within their respective territorial jurisdictions in respect of complaints, which on enquiry prima-facie disclose a commission of cognizable offence”, sources further said.
As per Sub-Section 2 of Rule 27, the Vigilance Commission is required to monitor and review the progress of investigation of cases registered in various Police Stations on the basis of the reports of CVOs and DVOs.
Holding Government responsible for feeble internal vigilance mechanism in the Government departments, sources said, “there are many departments which don’t have full-time CVOs/DVOs although the Rules clearly state departments and organizations having frequent public interface shall have full time CVOs and DVOs who shall not be entrusted with any other responsibility by the Government”.
Even the Rule 25, which pertains to tenure of officers as CVOs and DVOs, is being blatantly violated by the Government and the State Vigilance Commission is acting as mute spectator, sources further pointed out.
This Rule states: “The normal tenure of an officer appointed as CVO or DVO shall be two years extendable by a further period of one year in the same organization or up to a further period of two years on transfer to another organization on completion of initial deputation tenure of three years in the previous organization with the approval of the State Vigilance Commission”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
