If corruption in the State administration and institutions has to be contained, the Government has to make the Jammu and Kashmir Anti Corruption Bureau not only administratively from within very effective and assertive but provide it all that infrastructure which it may be in dire need of, to inquire, investigate, verify, registering FIRs, conducting raids and searches, recommending for prosecution and the like. A weak, fragile, directionless and non- assertive organisation so sensitive like the Anti Corruption Bureau, is tantamount to provide on a platter, an open field and opportunities to corrupt and dishonest people in the Government administration to rule the roost.
What is, after all the alleged conflict between the State Vigilance commission Act and some Rules? Who are in defiance mode not to follow the Governmental line and policy in structuring of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) while being in Government service? Why is the state Government appearing to be infirm and shiftless in not appointing a competent person as its Director to enable fast decisions and action taken on ground to take place? Does not the Government understand the critical role, the ACB is mandated to play in the State of Jammu and Kashmir where corruption and corrupt practices have assumed alarming proportions? Does not an air of indecisiveness in strengthening and bolstering the Organization mean-nothing less than watching the way the cookie crumbles?
Why are some senior IPS officers reportedly exhibiting reluctance and disinclination to hold the post and does that not reflect an air of indiscipline, some administrative constraints notwithstanding? After all, is no one concerned and bothered about the likely fate of piled up of complaints, both already “received” in the office and the ones in the pipeline to reach their destination with the sole aim to bring the concerned corrupt ones to book? We cannot argue a period of one month to be too much to be felt alarmed about in keeping the Organization headless, but two aspects really are issues of concern. Firstly, the Organization is not made much effective in the sense that any recommendations and findings made by it in respect of a complaint of corruption and financial irregularity committed by some state official by not getting a due response and a positive reaction from most of the state Departments, the Government doing nothing about that except issuing ‘strong worded’ official circulars. Secondly, we do not find the rate of conviction quite encouraging in cases probed fully and adequately by the ACB as the response at later crucial stages from various levels, a particular case travels to reach the final stage of prosecution, is found ineffective. Can we ask as to how many officers charged of corruption were convicted, jailed and their ill gotten properties seized during the last few years? The prevailing scenario indirectly weakens the organization. That, perhaps, speaks for the important post of the Director of the ACB being termed by many as “weakened post”.
We would like the State Government to make the post of Director of the Anti Corruption Bureau not only all effective and powerful but the fact of it made known to percolate deep down to the last cadre of the Government employees. The domain of the Director needs adequately to be made elastic as also to enjoy professional autonomy without any influence or any pressures from any quarter whatsoever as the aim should be to strike at the roots of the scourge of corruption. In fact, the entire working of the organization should be autonomous in matters of professionalism, interpreting manuals and laws honestly and fearlessly as also get encouragement and every possible help including pecuniary and career related incentives from the Government. Can the State Government accord its attention on priority basis to the problem and in the meantime, post a competent and deserving incumbent for the post of the Director?
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel