The main focus of constituting Vigilance Division in a Government Department or any other sector is to minimize the scope of corruption in the regular work/dealing. Ultimate goal is to make the nation corruption free. To minimize the scope of corruption in the regular work, the Vigilance Division is working with the procedures and pros & cons of the working system and suggesting necessary changes to be made/incorporated in the system to make it corruption free. On the other hand, the Vigilance Division has to work with different information received from different corners through different modes. The Vigilance Division/Section of any Government Department of any other sector is receiving a sizeable number of complaints regularly. To handle those complaints regularly every Vigilance Division has to suffer a lot considering the nature of the complainants. Though the strongest and faithful mode is complaint but maximum complaints received by any Vigilance Division is found fake and motivated. It is the thought of people that, if any essence of corruption is being added with any complaint, then action against the said complainant became stronger and quicker. To handle simple complaints every department has its Complaint Section but corruption related complaints are being handled at the Vigilance Section. If any essence of corruption is being added in any complaint, then it will be dealt at Vigilance Section and after some sort of enquiry it will be found that the said complaint is simple in nature. So, all efforts of the Vigilance Section became purposeless. To avoid loss of manpower and to handle the complaints purposefully, the Central Vigilance Commission has made clear guidelines to dealt with complaints.

The complaint handling policy of the Commission has been laid down in detail in CVC Circular No. 98/DSP/9 dated 15.12.2014 and subsequent modification of the Complaint Handling Policy vide CVC Circular No. 004/VGL/020 (pt.) dated 01.0/.2019.

The Commission may inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to specified category of officials wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and an offence with which he may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19/3, be charged at the same trial. Specified category of officials and the organization falling under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission does not entertain anonymous or pseudonymous complaints.

As the Commission deals only with matters of corruption, redressal of grievances should not be the focus of complaints to the Commission. No fee shall be chargeable for lodging complaints with the Commission. A complaint should preferably be lodged in typed or written form in English or Hindi language for facilitating early action thereon. The Commission may dismiss a complaint in-limine which does not meet the prescribed criteria. The Commission does not entertain complaints which are against private persons, State Government officials, Members of Parliament or State Legislature, elected representatives of other bodies, members of judiciary or officials of private organizations. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over them. Complaints sent on any e-mail ID of officers of the Commission will not be entertained or taken cognizance of by the Commission. For specific details regarding the procedure for dealing with complaints in the Commission, the Regulation 3 of CVC (Procedure for Dealing with Complaints and Procedure of Inquiry) Regulations, 2021 may also be referred. However for complaints from “whistle-blowers” under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution 2004, the Government of India has authorized the Commission, as the Designated Agency, to receive written complaints or disclosure on any allegation of corruption or of misuse of office by any employee of the Central Government or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and take action in accordance with the provision of the Resolution.

Taking into account the facts and the nature of allegations made in the complaints, the Commission may take any of the following actions: -

a) get enquiry or investigation done through the CBI or any other investigating agency into the allegations levelled in the complaint. It may get the enquiry done through the CVO of the organisation concerned or any other CVO or an officer of the Commission and call for Inquiry Report (I&R); or

b) send the complaint to the above-mentioned Inquiry / Investigating Agencies for Factual Report (FR) or Discreet Verification and obtain report; or

c) send the complaint to the respective CVO for necessary action (NA); or

d) file or close the complaint.

The following criteria are generally applied while taking a decision to send a complaint for I&R: -

a) Complaints should be against officials and organizations within the jurisdiction of the Commission and containing allegations of corruption or misconduct or malpractice.

i) Complaints without specific factual details, verifiable facts and which are vague or contain sweeping or general allegations will not be acted upon.

ii) Complaint should be addressed directly to the Commission.

iii) The Commission does not entertain anonymous or pseudonymous complaints.

iv) As regards complaints in the matter of tenders, it is clarified that while the Commission may get the matter investigated, it would not generally interfere in the tendering process. Commission may, in appropriate cases, tender suitable advice to the authorities concerned.

v) As the Commission deals only with matters of corruption, redressal of grievances should not be the focus of complaints to the Commission.

b) Before sending a complaint for investigation and report (I&R), a confirmation would be sought from the complainant for owning or disowning the complaint, as the case may be, together with copy of his identity proof. If no response to the letter seeking confirmation is received from the complainant within 15 days, a reminder is sent. If still no response is received after 15 days of reminder, the complaint may be filed treating it as a pseudonymous complaint.

c) Once the Commission directs to investigate and submit a report on a complaint, a unique complaint number (case sensitive) would be provided to the complainant. The complainant can use this complaint number to see the status of action on the complaint by clicking on the ‘Complaint Status’ displayed on the Commission’s website – www.cvc.gov.in. However, the unique complaint number is not provided to the complainants in respect of complaints which have been filed or sent for necessary action or a factual report. The unique complaint number is distinctly separate from the letter or file number mentioned in the correspondence or the complaint serial number assigned to the complaint in electronic mode.

d) When the complaint has been registered in the Commission, further correspondence in the matter will not be entertained. However, Commission will ensure that the complaints are investigated, and action taken to its logical conclusion.

e) The CVOs are required to furnish investigation reports on such complaints within three months from the date of receipt of references from the Commission or within such time as specified by the Commission. The CVOs should personally review all such complaints pending for investigation in the Organizations in the first week of every month and take necessary steps towards expediting / finalization of reports and its processing. In case, if it is not possible to complete the investigations and refer the matter to the Commission within three months, the CVO should seek extension of time stating the specific reasons / constraints in each case, within 15 days of receipt of reference from the Commission. Such requests from the CVO should be with the approval of the Secretary / CMD / Chief Executive of the Department / Organization concerned, as the case may be. Non-adherence of the above guidelines and any instance of violation by the CVO would be viewed seriously by the Commission. (CVC Office Order No. 08/08/2020 dated 14.08.2020). However, in respect of PIDPI complaints, the time limit for submission of report is 12 weeks.

(f) After receipt of the report, the Commission may tender its advice or seek further information or clarification (FI) from the CVO. Upon receiving such further report as called for, the Commission would tender its advice. In respect of references made by the Commission to the Ministries, Departments / Organisations for clarification and / or comments, the same should be sent to the Commission within six weeks. If, in any case, it is not possible to do so, the Chief Vigilance Officer concerned should, after satisfying himself / herself of the reasons for delay, write to the Commission for extension of time.

(i) In respect of those complaints which are forwarded to CVOs of respective organisations for Necessary Action (N.A.); the CVO is required to scrutinize the complaints thoroughly and decide action on such complaints within a period of one month from the date of receipt of complaint from the Commission.

(ii) Before initiating action on complaints forwarded for Necessary Action (N.A.), CVO should seek confirmation from the complainant for owning or disowning the complaint, as the case may be, together with copy of his identity proof, as the Commission does not seek confirmation from the complainant, on such complaints.

(iii) In respect of the complaints referred by the Commission to CVOs for necessary action, in case they have been investigated and a vigilance angle has come to notice against an officer falling under the jurisdiction of the Commission, the case must be referred back to the Commission for obtaining its First Stage Advice. In such complaints, the timeline of three months for completion of investigation and submission of report would apply. Otherwise, such complaints require no further reference to the Commission and are to be disposed of by the Organisations concerned themselves after taking required action.

(iv) CVO should update the status of complaints sent for necessary action on the Commission's website at www.portal.cvc.gov.in (Commission's Circular No. 004/VGL/020 (Pt.) dated I3.08.2020).

(v) At the time of forwarding the complaint to the CVO concerned for necessary action, an acknowledgement is also sent to the complainant. Further status in this regard would be available with the CVO only and hence, it would be appropriate for the complainant to approach the CVO/ organisation concerned for obtaining information about the same, if he so desires.

The following categories of complaints would ordinarily be closed without taking any further action on the same: -

(i) Complaints containing allegations of administrative nature such as transfer, posting, promotion, leave etc.

(ii) Complaints not directly addressed to the Commission and/or endorsed to multiple authorities;

(iii) Complaints which are anonymous/ pseudonymous or contain vague, frivolous, non­specific allegations;

(iv) Complaints about sub-judice matter;

(v) Complaints against private persons, State Government officials, members of Parliament or State Legislature, elected representatives of other bodies, members of judiciary officials or private organisations etc. which are not covered within the Commission's jurisdiction;

(vi) Complaints which are illegible.

Complainant may find out the status of those complaints which have been referred by the Commission for necessary action from the CVO of the concerned Organization / Ministry or Department.

a) The Commission expects the CVO to scrutinise the complaints sent by the Commission for necessary action and decide action on such complaints within a period of one month from the date of receipt of complaint from the Commission.

b) Complaints referred to CVOs for necessary action must be referred back to the Commission for advice, if they have been investigated and a vigilance angle has come to notice against an officer falling under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If any such complaints are taken up for inquiry / investigation by the CVO, the time limit of three months for completion of investigation and submission of report would apply. Otherwise, such complaints require no further reference to the Commission and are to be disposed of by the Departments / Organisations themselves after taking necessary action. In terms of CVC Circular No. 004/VGL/020(Pt.) dated 13.08.2020, the CVO should update the status of complaints sent for necessary action on the Commission’s website at www.portal.cvc.gov.in.

c) However, all the complaints made under PIDPI Resolution which have been forwarded to the CVO for necessary action must be referred back to the Commission, irrespective of Commission’s normal jurisdiction, for advice if they have been investigated and the allegation of corruption or mis-use of office by an employee has come to notice.

Complaints against Secretaries to the Government of India, received by the authorities other than the Commission will be referred to the Cabinet Secretariat for placing before the Group of Secretaries headed by the Cabinet Secretary. Similarly, complaints against the Chief Executives and Functional Directors of Public Sector Undertakings and the CMDs & Functional Directors of Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions received by authorities other than the Commission will be placed before a Group of Officers headed by Secretary (Coordination) in Cabinet Secretariat. The procedure is laid down in DoPT OM No. 104/100/ 2009-AVD.I dated 14.01.2010 as amended by Corrigendum of the same No. dated 8.03.2010 and in DPE’s OM No. 15(1)/2010/DPE(GM), dated 11.03.2010 as amended by OM of the same No. dated 12.04.2010 and dated 11.05.2011.

The complaints received in the Commission against Secretaries to Government of India are generally being forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary. Such complaints should not be sent to the CVO of the Administrative Ministry concerned, in which the Secretary against whom the complaint has been made is working or had worked in the past. The complaints received in the Commission against Chairman / CMDs / MDs / CEOs / Functional Directors of CPSEs / PSBs, etc. would be forwarded to the CVO of the Administrative Ministry. Complaints referred by the Commission to the Ministries / Departments against aforesaid categories of officials are to be dealt / inquired into and report submitted to the Commission by the respective authorities to whom the complaints are sent by the Commission and such complaints should not be forwarded to the Group of Secretaries or Group of Officers for consideration. (CVC Circular No. 010/VGL/008 dated 14.03.2011 and 2/.0/.2010 – regarding clarification on complaints against Secretaries to GoI, etc.)

In large number of cases, complaints are sent to multiple authorities and processed. Therefore, to ensure consistency, any complaint received in CVC against Secretaries to Government of India and where an investigation report is to be sought by CVC, the same should be sought through Secretary, DoPT.

In respect of complaints referred by the Commission to the Ministries / Departments against the Chief Executives and Functional Directors of Public Sector Undertaking and the CMDs & Functional Directors of Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions, the same are to be dealt / inquired into by the Ministries / Departments concerned to whom the complaints have been forwarded by the Commission, and reports submitted to the Commission by the respective authorities.

Complaints received from Lokpal are to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Complaints received by or cases arising in Ministries / Departments / Offices in respect of the employees under their administrative control may be dealt with by the administrative Ministry / Department concerned. The Central Vigilance Commission is, however, responsible for advising the administrative authorities in respect of all matters relating to integrity in administration. The Commission has also the power to call for reports, returns and statements from all Ministries / Departments so as to enable it to exercise a general check and supervision over vigilance and anticorruption works in Ministries / Departments. It may also take over under its direct control any complaint or cases for investigation and further action. The matters in which the Central Vigilance Commission should be consulted during the progress of inquiries and investigations and the reports and returns which should be submitted to Central Vigilance Commission to enable it to discharge its responsibilities have been indicated in the relevant paragraphs of the Manual.

Excluding the Lokpal referred complaints, following procedure may be followed: -

a) Every Vigilance Section / Unit will maintain a vigilance complaint register in Form CVO-1, in two separate parts for category ‘A’ and category ‘B’ employees. Category ‘A’ includes such employees against whom Commission’s advice is required whereas category ‘B’ includes such employees against whom Commission’s advice is not required. If a complaint involves both categories of employees, it should be shown against the higher category, i.e., Category ‘A’.

b) Every complaint, irrespective of its source, would be entered in the prescribed format in the complaints register chronologically as it is received or taken notice of. A complaint containing allegations against several officers may be treated as one complaint for the purpose of statistical returns.

c) Entries of only those complaints in which there is an allegation of corruption or improper motive; or if the alleged facts prima facie indicate an element or potentiality of vigilance angle should be made in the register. Complaints, which relate to purely administrative matters or technical lapses, such as late attendance, disobedience, insubordination, negligence, lack of supervision or operational or technical irregularities, etc. should not be entered in the register and should be dealt with separately under “non-vigilance complaints”.

d) A complaint against an employee of a Public Sector Enterprise or an Autonomous Organisation may be received in the administrative Ministry concerned and also in the Commission. Such complaints will normally be sent for inquiry to the organisation in which the employee concerned is employed and should be entered in the vigilance complaints register of that organisation only. Such complaints should not be entered in the vigilance complaints register of the administrative Ministry in order to avoid duplication of entries and inflation of statistics, except in cases in which, for any special reason, it is proposed to deal with the matter in the Ministry itself without consulting the employing organisation.

Each complaint will be examined by the Chief Vigilance Officer to see whether there is any substance in the allegations made in it to merit. Where the allegations are vague and general and prima facie unverifiable, the Chief Vigilance Officer may decide, with the approval of the Head of the Department, where considered necessary, that no action is necessary and the complaint should be dropped and filed. Where the complaint seems to give information definite enough to require a further check, a preliminary inquiry / investigation will need to be made to verify the allegations so as to decide whether, or not, the public servant concerned should be proceeded against departmentally or in a court of law or both. If considered necessary, the Chief Vigilance Officer may have a quick look into the relevant records and examine them to satisfy himself about the need for further inquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. Detailed guidelines about the nature of investigation and the agency, which should be entrusted with it, are given in Chapter V. The information passed on by the CBI to the Ministry / Department regarding the conduct of any of its officers should also be treated in the same way.

A complaint which is registered can be dealt with as follows:

(i) file it without or after investigation; or

(ii) forward it to the CBI for investigation / appropriate action; or

(iii) forward it to the concerned administrative authority for appropriate action on the ground that no vigilance angle is involved; or

(iv) to take up for detailed investigation by the Departmental Vigilance Wing.

An entry to that effect would be made in columns 6 and 7 of the Vigilance Complaint Register (Form CVO-1) with regard to “action taken” and “date of action” respectively. A complaint will be treated as disposed of in Quarterly Performance Report (QPR) either on issue of charge-sheet or on final decision for closing or dropping the complaint. If a complaint is taken up for investigation by the Departmental Vigilance Wing or in cases in which it is decided to initiate departmental proceedings or criminal prosecution, further progress would be monitored through other relevant registers. If there were previous cases / complaints against the same officer, it should be indicated in the remark’s column, i.e., column 8.

Complaints received from the Commission under the PIDPI Resolution are not required to be verified for genuineness by the CVO as the process of verification / confirmation is completed in the Commission prior to referring it for investigation or further necessary action. Therefore, these should be taken up for investigation by CVO on their receipt from the Commission. Such complaints shall, in other words, be treated as registered, immediately on receipt. The Department is required to send its report to the Commission within three months from the date of receipt of the reference.

Complaints received by the Department where the Commission has called for an “I & R” shall be treated as a signed complaint (not required to be verified for genuineness) and taken up for investigation. (CVC Circular No. 01/01/2015 dated 23.01.2015)

In respect of references made by the Commission to the CBI / Ministries, etc. for clarification and / or comments, the same should be sent to the Commission within 6 weeks.

Any complaint against the CVO should be immediately referred to the Commission and the Commission would decide the further course of action thereon. However, the complaints against the other vigilance functionaries shall be looked into by the CVO personally and further action taken as per normal procedure.

References received from Members of Parliament and Dignitaries are to be dealt as per procedure laid down in Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure brought out by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances. It has, however, been noticed that a number of complaints are being received using letter heads of Members of Parliament / VIPs and with forged signatures of the Hon’ble MPs / VIPs. Hence, as a measure of abundant caution and to provide adequate protection to the officers against whom such complaints have been made, confirmation shall be sought from the dignitary regarding the making of the complaint. On receipt of confirmation, the complaint shall be dealt with on priority as per the procedure referred to above.

a. Complaints can be lodged by addressing the written communication / letter directly to the Commission or on Commission’s portal www.portal.cvc.gov.in or through the Commission’s website www.cvc.gov.in under the link “Lodge Complaint” on home page.

b) Complaints sent through written communication / letter should contain complete postal address (mobile / telephone number, if any) of the sender with specific details / information of the matter.

c) Complaints sent on any e-mail ID of officers of the Commission will not be entertained or taken cognizance of by the Commission.

d) Procedure for lodging complaints under the PIDPI Resolution by the whistle-blowers is given in detail later on in this book.

a. Complainants are important stake holders for an anti-corruption institution like Central Vigilance Commission. The Commission expects that the complaints lodged with the Commission are genuine and not malicious, vexatious or frivolous; are based on verifiable facts and pertain to the Commission’s jurisdiction. Complainants must keep in mind that the resources at the command of the Commission and other vigilance formations are precious; and so, it needs to be used prudently in unearthing serious issues of corruption that would serve the public interest. Apart from using the resources of the Commission, false and frivolous complaints create administrative delays in decision making like in the selection processes, project implementations apart from tarnishing personal reputations of the Government functionaries. Though there are provisions in law to deal with false and frivolous complaints, the same are not invoked ordinarily so that genuine complainants are not deterred. However, in appropriate cases where complaints are lodged with a malafide / ulterior motive to harass or harm an innocent Government servant, necessary action could be taken against such complainants by applying the existing provisions.

b. The complaint should not be anonymous or pseudonymous. If the complainant expects that the Commission should not file (take no action) their complaints on the basis of it being anonymous or pseudonymous, the complainants are expected to mention their name, correspondence address and contact details properly / correctly. It is also expected that the complainants will be quick to respond to the verification / confirmation being sought from them by the Commission. The complainants may lodge complaint under PIDPI Resolution, 2004 if they wish to protect their identity.

c. Similarly, complaints having incomplete / vague / generic observations are difficult to inquire into or investigate and are normally filed (no action taken). Therefore, it is expected from the complainants to go through the Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission, which is available on its website www.cvc.gov.in, so that only those complaints are lodged which are specific and where adequate evidence is enclosed so that it can indicate a substantive vigilance angle prima-facie.

d. The complaint should not be biased or based on any personal grievances, not having any vigilance angle as such.

e. The complaint should be pertaining to Ministries / Departments/ Organisations falling within the normal jurisdiction of the Commission. For example, complaints against any authority or employee pertaining to State Governments do not fall within the normal jurisdiction of the Commission and hence the same would be filed (no action taken). The process of filing complaints and its processing within the Commission may lead to the use of the resources within the Commission in an un- productive manner.

f. The complainants who want to make whistle blower complaint under PIDPI Resolution are also expected to familiarise themselves with the proper procedure as enumerated in the Commission’s Circular for complaints under PIDPI Resolution. If these procedures are not followed, then the complaints made thereunder will be treated like a general complaint and the identity of the complainant may get revealed. This may put the complainant in a disadvantageous position.

g. The complainants are advised to raise only those issues in their complaints to Commission which may not have been raised by anyone before any authority. At times, the complainant addresses his complaint to multiple agencies rather than addressing to the Commission only. In such situations, it becomes very difficult for the Commission to initiate action as it is felt that since the complaint is addressed to other agency / agencies they may take appropriate action in the matter. Therefore, it is expected from the complainant to address their complaints only to the Commission, in those cases where they expect action to be taken by the Commission.

h. It has also been the experience of the Commission that some complainants raise a large number of issues in one complaint in a way that all the issues get mixed up / intertwined with each other and it becomes difficult to discern and delineate the specific issues individually. The Commission expects that the complainants, while forwarding their complaints to the Commission, should mention about the various specific issues one by one in a coherent manner so that any person of normal prudence can understand these issues unambiguously.

i) It has also been observed that many a time, hand written complaints received in the Commission are not legible at all and it becomes difficult to understand the contents of complaints and take appropriate action. If a hand-written complaint is forwarded to the Commission, it is expected that it should be legible. The same applies to the enclosures sent along with the complaints. All types of complaints, even if printed or photocopied should be clearly legible.

ii) The complainants are also expected to lodge complaints regarding only those issues having vigilance angle which are not part of any litigation in any courts, tribunals, etc., i.e., the matter should not be sub-judice.

If a complaint against a public servant is found to be malicious, vexatious or unfounded, it should be considered seriously whether action should be taken against the complainant for making a false complaint. Under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a person making false complaint can be prosecuted. Section 182 reads as follows: -

“Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant:

a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Illustrations:

a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or misconduct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place, knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assailants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villagers or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.”

d) If the person making a false complaint is a public servant, it may be considered whether departmental action should be taken against him as an alternative to prosecution.

e) Under section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19/3 a person making a false complaint can be prosecuted on a complaint lodged with a court of competent jurisdiction by the public servant to whom the false complaint was made or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.

f) In respect of complaints received by the Commission, while dealing with the matters if it comes across any such false complaint, the Commission may advise the administrative authority concerned about appropriate action to be taken. Regarding complaints received by the Departments / organisation, the administrative authorities may also, at their discretion, seek the advice of the Commission in respect of such cases involving public servants.

Some complainants, after confirming the complaint made by them, make a request for withdrawing the same or stopping the inquiry / investigation by the Commission / organization. It is to be noted that once a complainant confirms the complaint and action has been initiated for inquiry/ investigation by the Commission / organization, it is not permissible to withdraw / stop such enquiry / investigation even if the complainant withdraws the complaint. The allegations contained in the complaint have to be taken to its logical conclusion irrespective of complainant’s request for withdrawal of the complaint.

As said earlier that, maximum complaints received by an organization are either fake or motivated. But on the other hand, many complaints have actual facts and are genuine in nature. To distinguish between bogus and genuine complaints, CVC has opted the verification mechanism. If one complaint has passed the bar of verification process, then there should be investigation on the said complaint. Vigilance Division of any organization also treats the following aspects under the head of complaint:

1. Information about fraud, corruption, malpractice or misconduct on the part of public servants may flow to the agencies concerned, in the form of a complaint from any of the following or other sources: -

I. Complaints received from employee(s) of the organisation or from the public.

II. Departmental inspection reports, stock verification reports and reports of irregularities in accounts detected during routine Audits of accounts.

III. Scrutiny of annual property returns.

IV. Scrutiny of transactions reported under the Conduct Rules applicable.

V. Audit reports on Government accounts and on the accounts of Central public undertaking and other corporate bodies, etc.

VI. Reports of Parliamentary Committees like the Estimate Committee, Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings.

VII. Proceedings of the Houses of Parliament.

VIII. Complaints and allegations appearing in the print and electronic media.

IX. Information shared by agencies like CBI, ACB, Lokayukts, etc. (Vigilance Manual 2021, Chapter-III, Para 3.1.1)

2. Information about corruption, malpractices & misconduct may also be gathered by the CVOs by adopting appropriate methods keeping in view the nature of work of the respective organisation. (Vigilance Manual 2021 Chapter-III, Para-3.1.2)

3. Information about corruption and malpractices on the part of Public Servants may also be received from their subordinates or from other public servants, in the form of complaints. (Vigilance Manual 2021 Chapter-III. Para-3.1.3)

4. The audit reports (internal, statutory or by Comptroller & Auditor General) are also authentic sources which reveal not only instances of inappropriate activities but also point out towards specific and serious violation of rules I procedures etc. involving suspected acts of corruption. These reports should be scrutinized by the CVOs and other authorities concerned to look for any possible misconduct. In case, any vigilance angle is perceived, the same has to be brought to the notice of the Commission for further appropriate action, as per Commissions mandate and relevant rules etc. (Vigilance Manual 2021, Chapter-III, Para 3.2 read with Commission's Circular No. 3(v)/99/14 dated 16.05.2001)

The instructions / guidelines issued from time to time in the matter by the DoPT / CVC are as follows: -

1. DoPT's OM No. 104/76/2011-AVD.I dated 18.10.2013 and Commission's Circular No. 07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014 provide that no action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints irrespective of the nature of the allegations and such complaints need to be filed.

2. Commission’s initial Circular No.3(v)/99/2 dated 29.06.1999 prescribes that no action should be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints and they should just be filed.

3. Commission’s Circular No. 98/DSP/9 dated 31.01.2002 reiterates that under no circumstances, should any investigation be commenced on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints.

4. Commission’s Circular No. 98/DSP/9 dated 11.10.2002 reviewing its earlier instructions of 1999, envisaged that if any Department / organisation proposes to look into the verifiable facts alleged in anonymous / pseudonymous complaints, it may refer the matter to the Commission seeking its concurrence through the CVO or the head of the organisation. These guidelines stand withdrawn vide CVC Circular dated 25.11.2014.

5. DoPT OM No. 104/76/2011-AVD.I dated 18.10.2013 provides that no action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints irrespective of the nature of the allegations and such complaints need to be simply filed.

6. Commission’s Circular No. 07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014 withdrawing Circular No. 98/DSP/9 dated 11.10.2002, reiterates previous Circular No.3(v)/99/2 dated 29.6.1999 and Circular No. 98/DSP/9 dated 31.01.2002 to the effect that no action should be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints and such complaints should be filed.

7. As per DoPT complaint handling policy issued vide OM No. 104/76/2011AVD.I dated 18.10.2013, complaints containing vague allegations could also be filed without verification of identity of the complainant even if identity of complainant is mentioned in the complaint.

The Commission has furnished clarifications through Circular No.03/03/16 dated 07.03.2016 to Ministries / Departments on action to be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints which were acted upon and were at different stages of process including disciplinary proceedings before issue of CVC Circular No. 07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014. Accordingly, it has been clarified that: -

1. No action should be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints in line with Commission’s present Circular No. 07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014, and such complaints should be filed.

2. However, where the action was initiated on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints prior to the issue of CVC Circular No.3(v)/99/2 dated 29.6.1999, it can be pursued further to its logical end.

3. Where action was initiated on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints between the period 11.10.2002 and 25.11.2014 with prior concurrence of the Commission but is pending, further action is permissible on such complaints.

4. Material / evidence gathered during the investigation / verification of anonymous complaints when the action was prohibited on such complaints (i.e., between 29.6.1999 & 11.10.2002), or where such inquiry was initiated without the approval of the Commission, can be utilised for further initiation of disciplinary proceedings on misconducts noticed in such verification / inquiry.

5. The procedure for handling anonymous / pseudonymous complaints has been modified in view of the fact that complainants who desire to protect their identity now have the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informers Resolution – 2004 (PIDPIR). Relevant instructions on this have been issued vide DoPT OM No. 104//6/2011- AVD.I dated18.10.2013.

6. Any complaint that does not bear the name and address of the complainant is an anonymous complaint. No action is to be taken on anonymous complaints by the Ministries / Departments / Organisations, irrespective of the nature of allegations, and such complaints should be filed. Such complaints shall not be treated as registered complaints.

7. Similarly, no action is to be taken by the Ministries / Departments / Organisations in the case of complaints which are treated as pseudonymous. A complaint that does not bear the full particulars of the complainant or is unsigned or is not subsequently acknowledged by a complainant as having been made is a pseudonymous complaint. Pseudonymous complaints will be referred to the complainant for confirmation / genuineness verification and if no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days of sending the reminder, if still no response is received, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the concerned Ministry / Department. The relevant Circulars on the subject are CVC’s Circular No. 07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014, DoPT OM No. 104/76/2011-AVDs.I dated 18.10.2013 and CVC Circular No.03/03/16 dated 0/.03.2016.

8. The Commission vide Circular No. 98/DSP/09 dated 24.09.2020 has reiterated that no action shall be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaint by Ministries / Departments / Organizations in the light of the guidelines issued vide DoPT OM No. 104/76/2011-AVD.I dated 18.10.2013. The Commission has observed that some Departments / Organizations are still taking cognizance of anonymous complaints despite strict guidelines of DoPT and CVC. Such non-compliance of guidelines by authorities would be viewed seriously by the Commission.

It may be noted that the procedure for handling anonymous / pseudonymous complaints has been modified in view of the fact that complainants who desire to protect their identity now have the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informers Resolution- 2004 (PIDPIR). Relevant instructions on this have been issued vide DoPT's OM No. 104/76/2011-AVD.1dated 18.10.2013.

To avoid loss of manpower and to handle the complaints purposefully, the Central Vigilance Commission has made clear guidelines to dealt with complaints and also made clear guidelines for the complainant to lodge a purposeful complaint. But in case of high-level corruption or in respect of involvement of a racket/gang, complainants are not interested to disclose their identity due to some obvious reasons. In such cases though the fact of the complaint is true but action could not be taken against the said complaint as the same became anonymous/ pseudonymous one. So, there was a need to protect the life-threat of the complainants so that, the high-level corruptions could be unearthed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while hearing the Writ Petition (C) no. 539/2003 relating to the murder of Sh. Satyendra Dubey, directed the Government of India to set up a suitable mechanism for receipt and enactment of complaints from "Whistle-Blowers". Accordingly, Department of Personnel and Training issued Resolution No. 89 dated 21st April,2004, commonly known as Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution, 2004, resolving to set up a mechanism by which a complainant can lodge a complaint in the prescribed manner and also seek protection against his victimisation for doing so. (Such complainants, called Whistle Blowers, are entitled to non-disclosures of their identity publicly, unless, they themselves do so). The Central Vigilance Commission has been authorised under the PIDPI Resolution, as the Designated Agency to receive complaints from whistle blowers.

The Government of India vide Gazette Notification No. 371/12/2002-AVD-III dated 21.04.2004 read with Corrigendum dated 29.04.2004 notified the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution, 2004, wherein the following provisions relating to the complaints being lodged by Whistle-Blowers have been made: -

a. The Central Vigilance Commission is authorised as the "Designated Agency" to receive written complaints or disclosure on any allegation of corruption or of misuse of office by any employee of the Central Government or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government.

b. Any public servant or a person including an NGO can make written disclosure to the designated agency except those referred in clauses (a) to (d) of Article 33 of Constitution.

c. The designated agency may call for further information or particulars from the persons making the disclosure.

d. Anonymous complaints shall not be acted upon.

e. The identity of the complainant will not be revealed unless the complainant himself has disclosed his identity.

f. The Head of the Department/Organisation to keep the identity of informant secret if he comes to know about it.

g. The designated agency may call the comments/explanations of the Head of Department/Organisation on the disclosure made.

h. The designated agency may seek the assistance of CBI or the police authorities to complete the investigation pursuant to the complaint received.

i. The designated agency on finding the allegation of misuse of office or corruption substantive, shall recommend appropriate action to the Department or Organisation concerned.

j. If the informant feels that he is being victimised, he may make an application before the designated agency seeking redressal in the matter. The designated agency may give suitable directions to the public servant or the public authority concerned.

k. If on an application or on the basis of information gathered, the designated agency is of the opinion that the complainant or the witness need protection, it shall issue appropriate directions to the Government authorities concerned; and

l. In the event of the identity of the informant being disclosed in spite of the designated agency's directions to the contrary, the designated agency is authorised to initiate appropriate action as per extant regulations against the person or agency making such disclosure.

The DoPT vide Notification No. 371/4/2013-AVD.III dated 14.08.2013 partially amended the PIDPI Resolution, 2004. The amended provisions are as under:

a. The Chief Vigilance Officers of the Ministries or Departments of the Government of India are also authorised as the "Designated Authority" to receive written complaint or disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office by any employee of that Ministry or Department or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and falling under the jurisdiction of that Ministry or the Department.

b. Either on receipt of application from the complainant, or on the basis of the information gathered otherwise, if the designated authority is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, the designated authority, shall take up the matter with the Central Vigilance Commission, for issuing appropriate directions to the Government authorities concerned.

c. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) shall supervise and monitor the complaints received by the designated authority.

In furtherance of the PIDPI Resolution, 2004, Central Vigilance Commission vide Office Order No. 33/5/2004 dated 17.05.2004 issued guidelines and Public Notice regarding the procedure to be followed for filing whistle-blower complaints under the PIDPI Resolution, 2004, to ensure that the identity of complainant is kept secret. The following procedure has been prescribed in the public notice:

a. The complaint should be in a closed/ secured envelope.

b. The envelope should be addressed to Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission and should be super-scribed "Complaint under the Public Interest Disclosure". The complainant should give his/her name and address in the beginning or end of complaint or in an attached letter. (Para 4.2(b) of Vigilance Manual 2021)

c. Commission will not entertain anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints.

d. The text of the complaint should be carefully drafted so as not to give any details or clue as to the complainant's identity. However, the details of the complaint should be specific and verifiable.

e. In order to protect identity of the person, the Commission will not issue any acknowledgement and the whistle-blowers are advised not to enter into any further correspondence with the Commission in their own interest. If any further clarification is required, the Commission will get in touch with the complainant. (Para 4.2(b) o/Vigilance Manual 2021)

f. On the advice of the Commission, in order to maintain confidentiality about the complainant's identity, the Department of Posts vide Circular No. 31-01/2021-PO dated 03.03.2021 has directed all post offices not to insist on the name and address of the complainant. It is mandatory for all post offices. The directions are reproduced as below: -

"Any article, addressed to the CVC as well as CVOs posted with the superannuation "Complaint under the Public Interest Disclosure" or "PIDPI Complaint" on the outside of the envelope of the article, can be accepted for posting registration and speed post service, without the name and complete address including mobile number & email address of the sender".

g. The Commission can also take action against complainants making motivated /vexatious complaints under this Resolution.

a. Complaints received under PIDPI Resolution are opened in a separate section, specially created for dealing with complaints from Whistle-Blowers. The section is called 'Confidential Section' and parallel files (separate file for each complaint) are created after concealing the name and address of the complainant.

b. Pseudonymous/ Anonymous PIDPI complaints will be filed and no action will be taken. The complaints which have been addressed to other/ several authorities are not treated as complaint under PIDPI Resolution and are forwarded by the Confidential Section to the Vigilance Section concerned of the Commission for taking necessary action under Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission.

c. In respect of those complaints which are considered fit for processing under PIDPI Resolution, a letter is sent to the complainant to obtain (a) confirmation as to whether he/ she has made the complaint or not and (b) a certificate that that he I she has not made similar / identical allegation of corruption / misuse of office to any other authorities to qualify as a Whistle Blower Complainant. Prescribed time limit for receiving the confirmation and the certificate from the Complainant is 30 days from the date of receipt of Commission's letter by the complainant. In case of no response within the prescribed time limit, a reminder is issued, giving additional two weeks' time to the complainant for sending confirmation and the certificate, to the Commission. If there is still no response from the complainant, the complaint is sent to the Branch concerned of the Commission for necessary action under Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission.

d. The Commission has decided to discontinue the practice of obtaining NOC from the Whistle Blower/complainant. (Commission's Public Notice dated 30.07.2021)

e. After receiving necessary confirmation from the complainant, the complaint is placed before the Screening Committee for decision.

f. The Screening Committee is headed by the Secretary and the Additional Secretaries of the Commission are members. The Screening Committee examines all complaints and recommends complaints for Investigation and Report (I & R) I Necessary Action (NA) / Filing.

g. When a complaint is put up to the Screening Committee, if it is found that there are certain shortcomings due to which it does not fulfil the eligibility criteria, it will be returned to the complainant, clearly enumerating the reasons for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. The complaint will then be closed in the Commission. Thereafter, the complainant has the option of either sending a fresh regular complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission under its Complaint Handling Policy or may again lodge a fresh complaint if desired under PIOPI Resolution after removal of the deficiencies. (Commission's Public Notice dated 30.07.2021)

h. The complaints, where necessary action has been recommended by the Screening Committee, are referred to the Vigilance Branch concerned for further action. Complaints recommended for investigation and report is sent to the Vigilance Branch concerned of the Commission for further action after approval of the Commission. The Commission has prescribed a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of reference from the Commission, for the organizations to submit investigation report. (Commission's Circular No. 12/09/18 dated 28.09.2018)

i. The complaints/ disclosures already categorized as Non-Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (Non-PIDPI) complaints/ cases where No Objection Certificate was received from the complainant before issuance of Public Notice dated 30.07.2021 will continue to be processed as per Commission's Public Notice dated 24.04.2019.

i. The PIDPI Resolution dated 21.04.2004 provides for the following provisions for protection of Whistle Blowers: -

a. Clause 6 - If any person is aggrieved by any action on the ground that he is being victimized due to the fact that he had filed a complaint or disclosure, he may file an application before the designated agency i.e. CVC, seeking redressal in the matter, who shall take such action as deemed fit. The designated agency may give suitable directions to the public servant or the public authority concerned as the case may be.

b. Clause 7 - Either on the application of the complainant, or on the basis of the information gathered, if the designated agency is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, the designated agency shall issue appropriate directions to the Government authorities concerned.

c. Clause 11 - In the event of the identity of the informant being disclosed in spite of the designated agency's directions to the contrary, the designated agency is authorised to initiate appropriate action as per extant regulations against the person or agency making such disclosure.

ii. The Commission, after receipt of representation (s) from Whistle Blowers about threat to their life, takes up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Nodal Agency, to undertake the responsibility of providing security cover to the genuine Whistle Blowers. On the advice of the Ministry of Home Affairs, State Government/UTs have appointed Nodal Officers and details of such officers nominated by State Governments are furnished to the Commission from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

iii. As regards protection against victimisation or harassment within the organisation, the Commission forwards such complaints of Whistle Blowers to the CVO of the organization concerned for appropriate action.

Clause 1A of PIDPI Resolution dated 14.08.2013 (amendments) provides that the Central Vigilance Commission shall supervise and monitor the complaints received by the Designated Authorities. A report on PIDPI complaints received by Designated Authorities, including cases of alleged harassment/victimisation received, are required to be sent to the Commission by the CVOs of the respective Ministries/ Departments.

The Commission has been laying emphasis on timely/ prompt action on complaints in order to ensure that irregularities, if committed, are surfaced at the earliest possible and all preventive/ punitive measures can be taken expeditiously. For this purpose, the Commission has issued guidelines on various occasions, specifying the time limit for dealing with complaints. The same as summaries in the following table: -

1 Timeline for seeking confirmation from complainant before initiating Investigation process. - 15 days

2 If confirmation not received within 15 days reminder to be sent to complainant. (If no response received even after reminder, complaint may be filed treating as pseudonymous complaints.) - 15 days

3 Timeline for submission of Investigation Report to the Commission on Complaints referred by it to the CVOs concerned for investigation. - 3 months (or as may be specified by the Commission, in individual matter)

4 In case, it is felt that it would not be possible to complete the investigation within the specified period, time limit for approaching the Commission for seeking extension of time, with the approval of the competent authority. - 15 days

5 Timeline for submission of investigation report in PIDPI complaints, referred by the Commission. - 12 weeks

6 Timeline for submitting response by CVOs to the Commission in respect of references made by it to CBI/ Ministries for clarification/comments in the matter of complaints. - 6 weeks

7 Timeline for CVOs to scrutinize and decide about action to be taken on the complaints sent by the Commission for necessary action to the CVOs concerned. - 1 month

8 Timeline for giving opinion by the Disciplinary Authority, about existence of vigilance angle in complaint, in case of difference of opinion with CVO - 15 days

So, as per provisions under PIDPI Resolution, 2004, if one complaint received at the Vigilance Division/Section of Circle/Regional level, there is no need to verify its genuineness and investigation against the said complaint is required to be initiate immediately through the available machinery.

Recently the Postal Directorate launched “Vigilance Complaint Mechanism System” (in short term VCMS) portal to handle the vigilance complaints.

Suspension, though not a penalty, is to be resorted to sparingly. Whenever a Government servant is placed under suspension not only does the Government lose his services but also pays him for doing no work. It also has a stigma attached to it. Therefore, the decision to place a Government servant under suspension must be a carefully considered decision and each case would need to be considered on merits. [Para 3 of OM No 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

Circumstances under which a Government Servant may be placed under suspension

1. where, a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

2. where, in the opinion of the competent authority, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or

3. where, a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. [Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]

a. If the Government servant is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours;

If, in the event of a conviction for an offence, Government servant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

Explanation - The period of 48 hours referred to in clause (b) above shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. [Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]

It shall be the duty of a Government servant who may be arrested for any reason to intimate the fact of his arrest and the circumstances connected therewith to his official superior promptly even though he might have subsequently been released on bail. On receipt of the information from the person concerned or from any other source the departmental authorities should decide whether the facts and circumstances leading to the arrest of the person call for his suspension. Failure on the part of the any Government servant to so inform his official superior will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone, apart from the action that may be called for on the outcome of the police case against him. [OM No. 39/59/54-Ests.(A) dated 25.02.1955]

b. Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. [Rule 10(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]

c. Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.

Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. [Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]

d. Further inquiry contemplated in rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 should not be ordered except in a case when the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement has been set aside by a Court of Law on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case or when fresh material has come to light which was not before the Court. A further inquiry into the charges which have not been examined by the Court can, however, be ordered by the departmental authorities under Rule 10(4) ibid depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. [OM No. 11012/24/77-Estt.(A) dated 18.03.1978]

e. A question whether the order of suspension in a case covered under Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has limited operation for the period of detention and not beyond it, was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s Rajiv Kumar (2003 (5) SCALE 297). Allowing the appeals of the Union of India in this case the Supreme Court has held that the order in terms of Rule 10 (2) is not restricted in its point of duration or efficacy to actual period of detention only. It continues to be operative unless modified or revoked under Sub-Rule 5(c) as provided in Sub-Rule 5(a) of the Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. [OM No. 11012/8/2003-Estt.(A) dated 23.10.2003]

1. Cases where continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g. apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents);

2. Where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the public servant is working;

3. Where the continuance in office of the Government servant will be against the wider public interest [other than those covered by (i) and (ii)] such as there is public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals, particularly corruption;

4. Where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie case is made out which would justify his prosecution or is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, and where the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service.

NOTE: In the first three circumstances the disciplinary authority may exercise his discretion to place a Government servant under suspension even when the case is under investigation and before a prima facie case has been established.

a) any offence or conduct involving moral turpitude;

b) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers for personal gain;

c) serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to Government;

d) desertion of duty;

e) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior officers.

Note: In respect of the types of misdemeanors specified in sub clauses (c) and (e) discretion has to be exercised with care. [Para 4 of the OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

a) If a case has been registered by the Police against a Government servant under Section 304-B of the IPC [Dowry death], he shall be placed under suspension in the following circumstances by the competent authority by invoking the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of the Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

b) If the Government servant is arrested in connection with the registration of the police case, he shall be placed under suspension immediately irrespective of the period of his detention.

c) If he is not arrested, he shall be placed under suspension immediately on submission of the police report under sub-section (2) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the Magistrate, if the report prime-facie indicates that the offence has been committed by the Government servant. [OM No. 11012/8/87-Ests.(A) dated 22.06.1987]

Authority competent to place a Government Servant under suspension are as follows:

a) Appointing Authority, or

b) Any authority to which Appointing Authority is subordinate, or

c) Disciplinary Authority, or

d) Any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order.

Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor – General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant General or equivalent (other than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. [Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]

Supervisory Officers in field offices located outside the Headquarters may, wherever necessary, be empowered to place officers subordinate to them under suspension, subject to the conditions mentioned below, by issuing special order in the name of President in pursuance of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965:

Only Supervisory officers in offices located away from headquarters need be specially empowered to suspend a subordinate officer in case involving gross dereliction of duties. In order to prevent abuse of this power the suspending authority should be required to report the facts of each case immediately to the next higher authority, and all such orders of suspension should become ab initio void unless confirmed by the reviewing authority within a period of one month from the date of orders. [OM No. 7/4/74-Ests.(A) dated 9.08.1974]

Authority competent to issue order regarding Deemed Suspension is the Appointing Authority. [Rule 10(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]

Reasons for Suspension, if not indicated in the suspension order itself, should be communicated within three months. [Para 5 of OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.A dated 02.01.2014]

An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. [Rule 10(5) (c) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965]

An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.

An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of 90 days.

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension, if the Government servant continues to be under detention and in such case the ninety days’ period shall be computed from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later:

Provided further that in a case where no charge sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed, –

a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1); or

b) two years from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (aa) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) as the case may be; or

c) two years from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later, in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2). [Rule 10(6) & (7) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] [Notification No. GSR 156 dated 19.10.2022]

In cases of prolonged suspension period, the courts have pointed out that the suspension cannot be continued for long and that inspite of the instructions of DOP&T, the Disciplinary Authorities are not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time. Also, in such cases the Government is unnecessarily paying subsistence allowance without extracting any work and if, on the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, the charged officer is exonerated from the charges, the Government has to unnecessarily pay the full salary and treat the period of suspension as on duty etc. It is, therefore, desirable that timely review of suspension is conducted in a just and proper manner and that the disciplinary proceedings are finalized expeditiously. [OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.A-III dated 18.11.2014]

An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule shall be reviewed by the competent authority on recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose.

The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and another officer of the level of disciplinary/appellate authority from the same office or from another Central Government office (in case another officer of same level is not available in the same office), in a case where the President is not the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.

The disciplinary authority and two officers of the level of Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary who are equivalent or higher in rank than the disciplinary authority from the same office or from another Central Government office (in case another officer of same level is not available in the same office), in a case where the appellate authority is the President.

Three officers of the level of Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary who are higher in rank than the suspended official from the same Department/Office or from another Central Government Department/Office (in case another officer of same level is not available in the same office), in a case where the disciplinary authority is the President.

The administrative ministry/department/office concerned may constitute the review committees as indicated above on a permanent basis or ad-hoc basis.

The Review Committee(s) may take a view regarding revocation/continuation of the suspension keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account that unduly long suspension, while putting the employee concerned to undue hardship, involve payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government. Without prejudice to the foregoing, if the officer has been under suspension for one year without any charges being filed in a court of law or no charge-memo has been issued in a departmental enquiry, he shall ordinarily be reinstated in service without prejudice to the case against him. However, in case the officer is in police/judicial custody or is accused of a serious crime or a matter involving national security, the Review Committee may recommend the continuation of the suspension of the official concerned. [OM No. 11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) dated 07.01.2004]

a). Subsistence Allowance

A Government servant under suspension is not paid any pay but is allowed a Subsistence Allowance at an amount equivalent to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or half pay and in addition dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary.

Where the period of suspension exceeds 3 months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows:

1) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first 3 months, if in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant;

2) the amount of subsistence allowance, may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first 3 months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant;

3) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. [FR 53 (1)(ii)(a)]

A Government servant under suspension is also entitled for:

Any other compensatory allowances admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances. [FR 53 (1)(ii)(b)]

No payment shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. [FR 53 (2)]

Compulsory Deductions to be enforced - (i) Income Tax (ii) House Rent (License Fee) and allied charges (iii) Repayment of loans and advances taken from Government – rate of recovery to be determined by Head of Department (iv) CGHS contribution (v) CGEGIS subscription

Deductions at the option of the suspended officer - (i) PLI premia (ii) Amounts due to Co-op stores/ Societies (iii) Refund of GPF advance

Deduction NOT to be made - (i) GPF subscription (ii) Amounts due to court attachments (iii) Recovery of loss to Government

Officer under suspension shall be considered by the DPC along with others. However, the recommendations in respect of those under suspension shall be placed in a sealed cover. The sealed cover shall be opened/ not opened (i.e. recommendation contained in the sealed cover shall not be acted upon) depending on the outcome of the disciplinary/ criminal proceedings.

If an officer is suspended subsequent to the meeting of the DPC but before he is actually promoted, then the recommendations would be deemed to have been placed in the sealed cover. [OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt(A) dated 14.09.1992] & [Para 11 of the OM No. OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

If the reporting/ reviewing officer is under suspension when the Confidential Report has become due to be written/ reviewed, it may be got written/ reviewed by the officer concerned within two months from the date of his having been placed under suspension or within one month from the date on which the report was due, whichever is later. An officer under suspension shall not be asked to write/ review Confidential Reports after the time limit specified above. [OM No. 21011/2/78-Estt.(A) dated 01.08.1978]

No officer under suspension should be allowed to write/ review the ACRs of his subordinates if during major part of writing/ reviewing he is under suspension as he might not have full opportunity to supervise the work of his subordinate. [OM No. 21011/8/2000-Estt.(A) dated 25.10.2000]

A Government servant under suspension cannot avail of LTC as he cannot get any leave including casual leave during the period of suspension. As he continues to be in service during the period of suspension, members of his family are entitled to LTC. [Para 12 of the OM No. OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

Leave may not be granted to a Government servant under suspension. [FR-55]

An officer under suspension is regarded as subject to all other conditions of service applicable generally to Government servants and cannot leave the station without prior permission. As such, the headquarters of a Government servant should normally be assumed to be his last place of duty. The order placing an officer under suspension should clearly indicate what his headquarters would be.

However, where an individual under suspension requests for a change of headquarters, there is no objection to a competent authority changing the headquarters if it is satisfied that such a course will not put Government to any extra expenditure like grant of T.A. etc. or other complications. [Para 10 of the OM No. OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

Instructions and guidelines issued vide OM No. 22034/4/2012-Estt(D) dated 02.11.2012 to be adhered to for Promotion issues.

Instructions and guidelines issued vide OM No. 11012/11/2007-Estt.(A) dated 14.12.2007, as amended from time to time. to be adhered to for (i) Empanelment (ii) Any deputation for which clearance is necessary (iii) Appointment to sensitive posts (iv) Assignments to training program (except mandatory training) issues.

Instructions and Guidelines issued vide OM No. 11012/7/2017-Estt.A-III dated 18.02.2020 to be adhered to for Obtaining Passport issues (NOC).

Instructions and Guidelines issued vide OM No. OM No. 11013/8/2015-Estt.A-III dated 27.07.2015 to be adhered to for Private Visit to abroad issues.

Application of a Government servant for appointment, whether by Direct Recruitment, transfer on deputation or transfer, to any other post should not be considered/ forwarded if he is under suspension. [Para 15 of the OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

Where a Government servant who is under suspension submits his resignation, the competent authority should examine, with reference to the merit of the disciplinary case pending against the Government servant, whether it would be in the public interest to accept the resignation. Normally, as officers are placed under suspension only in cases of grave delinquency, it would not be correct to accept the resignation from an officer under suspension. Exceptions to this rule would be where the alleged offence does not involve moral turpitude or where the evidence against the officer is not strong enough to justify the assumption that departmental proceedings, if continued would result in removal from service/dismissal, or where the departmental proceedings are like to be so protracted that it would be cheaper for the exchequer to accept the resignation. [OM No. 28034/4/94-Estt.(A) daed 31.05.1994] or [Para No. 16(c) of the OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014]

It may be that the circumstances of a case are such that, an accused employee should be allowed the option of resigning his appointment in the Department. If so, and if he then voluntarily tenders an unconditional resignation, this should be accepted without comment, subject to the provision of the decision above. [Para. 10, P & T. Manual, Vol. III.]

Where a Government servant, who is under suspension, submits a resignation, the Competent Authority should examine, with reference to the merit of the disciplinary case pending against the Government servant, whether it would be in the public interest to accept the resignation. Normally, as Government servants are placed under suspension only in cases of grave delinquency, it would not be correct to accept a resignation from a Government servant under suspension Exceptions to this rule would be where the alleged offences do not involve moral turpitude or where the quantum of evidence against the accused Government servant is not strong enough to justify the assumption that if the departmental proceedings we were continued, he would be removed or dismissed from service, or where the departmental proceedings are likely to be so protracted that it would be cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation.

In those cases where acceptance of resignation is considered necessary in the public interest, the resignation may be accepted with the prior approval of the Head of the Department in respect of Groups 'C' and 'D' posts and that of the Minister-in-charge in respect of holders of Groups 'A' and 'B' posts. In so far as Group 'B' officers serving in Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, the resignation of such officers shall not be accepted except with the prior approval of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India Concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission should be obtained before submission of the case to the Minister-in-charge / Comptroller and Auditor- General, if the Central Vigilance Commission had advised initiation of departmental action against the Government servant concerned or such action has been initiated on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission.

A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the Government servant is relieved of his duties. If a Government servant who had submitted a resignation, sends an intimation in writing to the appointing authority withdrawing his earlier letter of resignation before its acceptance by the appointing authority, the resignation will be deemed to have been automatically withdrawn and there is no question of accepting the resignation. In case, however, the resignation had been accepted by the appointing authority and the Government servant is to be relieved from a future date, if any request for withdrawing the resignation is made by the Government servant before he is actually relieved of his duties, the normal principle should be to allow the request of the Government servant to withdraw the resignation. If, however, the request for withdrawal is to be refused, the grounds for the rejection of the request should be duly recorded by the appointing authority and suitably intimated to the Government servant concerned. [G.I., Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 28034/25/87-Estt. (A), dated the 11th February, 1988.]

A Government servant who retires while under suspension is entitled to provisional pension equal to the maximum pension on the basis of qualifying service up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. [Rule 8(4)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021]

Time passed by a Government servant under suspension pending inquiry into conduct shall be counted as qualifying service where, on conclusion of such inquiry, he has been fully exonerated or only a minor penalty is imposed and the suspension is held to be wholly unjustified.

In cases not covered under sub-rule (1), the period of suspension shall not count unless the authority competent to pass orders under the rule governing such cases expressly declares at the time that it shall count to such extent as the Competent Authority may declare.

In all cases of suspension, the competent authority shall pass an order specifying the extent to which, if any, the period of suspension shall count as qualifying service and a definite entry shall be made in the service book of the Government servant in this regard.” [Rule 23 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021]

It shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government Servant under suspension who seeks to retire under FR 56(k) or FR-56(m) or Rule 43 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rule 2021. [FR-56(k) and FR-56(m)] [Rule 43(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021]

When a Government servant who has been suspended in reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order –

a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and

b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. [FR-54(B)(1)]

a) If Exonerated

i) where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant may be paid full pay and allowances.

ii) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the proceedings were delayed for reasons directly attributable to the Government servant,it may after notice to the Government servant and considering the representation-if any, order a reduced amount to be paid.

iii) The period of suspension will be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. [FR 54-B (3) & (4)]

b) Minor Penalty is imposed

Where the proceedings result only in minor penalty being imposed, then the suspension is treated as wholly unjustified and the employee concerned may be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under FR 54-B. [O.M. No.11012/15/85-Estt.(A) dt. 03.12.1985]

c) Other than exoneration/ minor penalty

i) The competent authority shall determine the amount to be paid, after notice to Government servant and considering his representation, if any. [FR 54-B(5)]

ii) The period of suspension shall not be treated as duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose.

iii) If the Government servant so desires, the period of suspension may be converted into leave of the kind due and admissible. (Note: Such leave can be in excess of 3 months in case of temporary Government servants or 5 years in case of permanent Government servants) [FR 54-B(7)]

NOTE: As per FR 54-B(9) wherever the amount allowed is less than full pay and allowances it shall not be less than the Subsistence Allowance already paid.

Where a Govt servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary proceedings or the court proceedings against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, for that period subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance already paid. [FR 54-B(2)]

a) Suspension order should normally indicate the grounds for suspension.

b) Where the suspension is on grounds of contemplated proceedings, charge sheet should be served upon the Government servant within 3 months

c) Where charge sheet is not served within 3 months, the reasons for suspension should be communicated to the Government servant immediately on expiry of 3 months from the date of suspension. [DoPT O.M. No.35014/1/81-Estt.(A) dated 9th November, 1982]

Order of Suspension is appealable under Rule 23 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Except in case of ‘deemed suspension’ which may take effect from a retrospective date; an order of suspension can take effect only from the date on which it is made. Ordinarily it is expected that the order will be communicated to the Government servant simultaneously.

Difficulty may, however, arise in giving effect to the order of suspension from the date on which it is made if the Government servant proposed to be placed under suspension: a) is stationed at a place other than where the competent authority makes the order of suspension; b) is on tour and it may not be possible to communicate the order of suspension; c) is an officer holding charge of stores and /or cash, warehouses, seized goods, bonds etc. d) A person on leave or who is absent unauthorizedly.

In cases of types (a) and (b) above, it will not be feasible to give effect to an order of suspension from the date on which it is made owing to the fact that during the intervening period a Government servant may have performed certain functions lawfully exercisable by him or may have entered into contracts. The competent authority making the order of suspension should take the circumstances of each such case into consideration and may direct that the order of suspension will take effect from the date of its communication to the Government servant concerned.

In case of (c) it may not be possible for the government servant to be placed under suspension to hand over charge immediately without checking and verification of stores/cash etc. In such cases the competent authority should, taking the circumstances of each case into consideration, lay down that the checking and verification of stores and/or cash should commence on receipt of suspension order and should be completed by a specified date from which suspension should take effect after formal relinquishment of charge.

In case of (d) there should not be any difficulty in the order of suspension operating with immediate effect. It should not be necessary to recall a Government servant if he is on leave for the purpose of placing him under suspension. When a Government servant is placed under suspension while he is on leave, the unexpired portion of the leave should be cancelled by an order to that effect.

- If the Disciplinary Authority finds that any or all the charges have not been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence or if no written statement of defence is received by him by the date specified, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such charges or appoint an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the truth of the charges. Though the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 permit such an inquiry being made by the Disciplinary Authority, itself, the normal practice is to appoint another officer as Inquiring Authority. It should be ensured that the officers so appointed has no bias and had no occasion to express an opinion in the earlier stages of the case.

The Departmental inquiry may be entrusted to a Commissioner for Department Inquiries (CDI) borne on the strength of Commission or to Departmental Inquiry officer. Where the DA is of the view that it would be better / desirable to appoint the IO from outside the Department, a request could be made to the Commission. The Commission may nominate a CDI or any other suitable person to be appointed as IO.

In all cases pertaining to category “A” officers in respect of whom the Central Vigilance Commission is required to be consulted or in any other case in which disciplinary proceedings for imposing a major penalty have been initiated on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, the Commission may nominate a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries borne on the strength of the Commission or any other officer as it may deemed fit as an IO. In composite cases where non-Gazetted Officers are involved with Gazetted Officer (s) and where CDI has been nominated by the Commission, the inquiry against all officers will be done by the CDI.

In all cases where CDI or any other suitable officer is not nominated by the Commission as IO, the Disciplinary Authority may nominate a Departmental Inquiry Officer to conduct an Inquiry.

It may not be always possible to entrust inquiries against delinquent officers to Gazetted Officers. However, the inquiries should be conducted by an Inquiry Officer who is sufficiently senior to the officer whose conduct is being inquired into as inquiry by a junior officer cannot command confidence which it deserves.

Further, it may be ensured that the officer only with sufficient service experience and seniority is appointed as Presenting Officer.

The Departments / Public Sector Undertakings / Organisations depending upon their need, and if they so desire, may maintain a panel of retired officers from within or outside the Department or Organisation for appointment as Inquiring Authorities, in consultation with the Chief Vigilance Officer. In case, there is difference of opinion between the Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Vigilance Officer about the inclusion of any name in the panel or appointment of any one out of the panel as IO in any case, the CVO may report the matter to the next higher authority, or the CMD for resolution of the difference. If still unresolved, the CVO may refer the matter to the CVC. A case of difference of opinion between the CVO and the CMD, if acting as Disciplinary Authority, may be referred to the Commission for its advice. (MHA OM No. 6/26/60–Ests (A) dated 16.02.1961 regarding precaution to be taken while appointing I.O.) (CVC Office Order No. 34/7/2003 dated 01.08.2003- Utilising the services of outsiders including retired officers for conducting Departmental Inquires)

DoPT has decided that panels of retired officers not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in Central Government and equivalent officer in the State Governments / PSUs to be appointed as the Inquiry Officer for the purpose of conducting departmental inquiries, would be maintained level / rank wise and place-specific by each cadre controlling authority where its offices are located.

The guidelines for appointment of retired officers as Inquiry officers as well as grant of honorarium and other allowances to them issued vide DoPT OM No. 142/40/2015-AVD.I dated 15.09.2017 may be adopted with suitable amendment by other Cadre controlling authorities. (DoPT O.M No. 142/40/2015-AVD.I dated 15.09.2017: Procedure for empanelment of retired officers as the Inquiry Officers for conducting Departmental Inquiries)

However, the grant of honorarium in the case of serving Government servants who have been appointed as Inquiry Officers, whether full time or part time, should be regulated in accordance with the guidelines contained in DoPT OM No. 142/15/2010-AVD-I dated 31.07.2012.

As soon as the Disciplinary Authority has decided upon the person who will conduct the oral inquiry, it will issue an order appointing him as the Inquiring Authority in the form given in Chapter 32 of ‘Handbook for Inquiry officers and Disciplinary Authorities’ issued by DoPT.

The Disciplinary Authority which initiated the proceedings will also appoint simultaneously a government servant or a legal practitioner as the Presenting Officer to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge before the Inquiring Authority. Ordinarily a government servant belonging to the Departmental set up who is conversant with the case will be appointed as the Presenting Officer except in cases involving complicated points of law where it may be considered desirable to appoint a legal practitioner to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. An officer who made the preliminary investigation or inquiry into the case should not be appointed as Presenting Officer.

While the disciplinary rules under which Departmental inquiries are conducted against Central Government employees and Railway servants provide for the appointment of a Presenting Officer by the Disciplinary Authority to present its case before the Inquiring Authority, the disciplinary rules of certain Public Sector Undertakings do not contain such a provision. As the appointment of a Presenting Officer would help in the satisfactory conduct of Departmental inquiry, the Central Vigilance Commission has advised that even in cases where the disciplinary rules do not contain a specific provision for the appointment of a Presenting Officers, the Disciplinary Authorities may consider appointing a Presenting Officer for presenting the case before the Inquiring Authority.

In order to expedite disposal of Departmental inquiries, the competent authority within its financial powers may consider sanction of suitable honorarium, where inquiries are not part of their sphere of duties, to the Presenting Officer. The amount payable on each occasion may be decided on merits taking into account the quality / volume of work and its quick and expeditious completion.

The grant of honorarium in the case of serving Government servants who have been appointed as Presenting Officers, whether full time or part time, should be regulated in accordance with the guidelines contained in DoPT OM No. 142/15/2010-AVD-I dated 31.07.2012.

As soon as the order of appointment of the Inquiry Officer is issued, the Disciplinary Authority will forward to him the following papers along with that order: -

1. A copy of the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;

2. A copy of the written statement of defence submitted by the Government servant. If the charged Government servant has not submitted a written statement of defence, this fact should be clearly brought to the notice of the Inquiring Authority;

3. List of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained;

4. A copy each of the statement of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. In the case of common proceedings, the number of copies of the statements of witnesses should be as many as the number of accused Government servants covered by the inquiry;

5. List of documents by which the articles of charge are to be proved;

6. A copy of the Covering Memorandum to the articles of charge addressed to the Government servant concerned;

7. Evidence proving the delivery of the documents to the Government servants. The date of receipt of the document by the charged officer should be clearly indicated. The date of receipt of the articles of charge by the Government servant will need to be taken into account by the Inquiring Authority in fixing the date of the first hearing;

8. A copy of the order appointing the Presenting Officer;

9. Bio-data of the officer in the prescribed form. (CVC Circular No. 1/11/66-Coord dated 22.11.1966 regarding forwarding of documents/papers to the CDE by the Disciplinary Authorities) (CVC Circular No. 4/42/72-R dated 21.11.1972 regarding forwarding of documents by the Disciplinary Authority to the C.D.Es) (CVC Circular No. 4/3/77-R dated 12.4.1977 regarding forwarding of documents by the Disciplinary Authority to the CDIs)

The above documents and all other relevant paper should be made available to the Presenting Officer at the earliest possible. If the Government servant has submitted a written statement of defence, the Presenting Officer will carefully examine it. If there are any facts which the Government servant has admitted in his statement, without admitting the charges, a list of such facts should be prepared by the Presenting Officer and brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer at an appropriate stage of the proceedings so that it may not be necessary to lead any evidence to prove the facts which the Government servant has admitted.

Before referring a case to the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authorities may ensure that they are in possession of the listed documents. While forwarding the case to the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authorities may specifically mention that all the listed documents are available with them or with the Presenting Officer concerned. (CVC letter No. 20/DSE/1 dated 2/.03.1980 regarding bringing the listed documents by Presenting officers at the regular hearings in the Inquiry) (CVC letter No. 4K/DSP/25 dated 06.05.1981 regarding listed documents in Departmental inquiries)

The basic purpose of appointment of Inquiry Officer is to inquire into the truth of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government Servant. The Departmental inquiry proceedings shall be completed within six months from the date of appointment of IO. The Inquiry Officer shall ensure that:

A. There is no delay in commencement and conduct of inquiry after receipt of IO and PO appointment orders. The preliminary hearing shall be fixed within the prescribed time limit.

B. The date for the preliminary hearing is chosen in such a way so as to provide reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned. For example, if the parties are posted outstation, date of hearing must be fixed so that there is adequate time for the communication to reach the parties and adequate time for the parties for undertaking the travel and reaching the venue.

C. The charged officer is asked in the notice of preliminary hearing itself to nominate his defence counsel and bring the officer during preliminary hearing.

D. Program for conduct of inquiry is prepared in consultation with prosecution and defence.

E. Inspection of listed documents is completed by Presenting Officer immediately after the receipt of appointment order or as ordered by the Inquiring Authority.

F. A day for brief hearing is fixed for deciding relevance of defence documents and witnesses to avoid protracted correspondences.

G. The parties are not allowed to dominate the proceedings by seeking frequent adjournments except in case of illness supported by medical certificates or any unavoidable circumstance.

H. Statements of listed witnesses recorded during the inquiry shall be made available to the charged officer well in time for cross- examination.

I. The request from the charged officer for providing copies of statement of witnesses recorded during investigation but which are not part of listed documents, may not be entertained.

J. Summons to witnesses are issued well in advance. Presenting Officer and charged officer should be made responsible personally to ensure the witnesses presence.

K. Hearing is held and completed on day-to-day basis and no adjournment is allowed on frivolous ground.

L. Ex-parte inquiry may not be held if the charged officer is under suspension and is unable to attend the inquiry proceedings due to non-receipt of subsistence allowance.

M. During main examination, leading question are not allowed.

N. Witness understands the question asked to him during examination/ cross-examination and ensures that the answer given in vernacular is properly translated and recorded.

O. Witness is recalled for re-examination only if it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice.

P. Production of new evidence to fill up a gap in the evidence is not allowed except when there is an inherent lacuna and defect in the evidence originally produced.

Q. No material from personal knowledge having bearing on the fact of the case or of extraneous nature which was not part of the charge-sheet or in the evidence submitted during inquiry and against which the charged officer has no opportunity to defend himself is imported to case.

R. Inquiry findings are confined to the essence of misconduct attributable to charged official or whether the charge of misconduct is made out against the official or not.

S. Findings in the case are not merely based on the written statements submitted by Prosecution and Defence but on the analysis of evidence produced during the inquiry by the parties.

T. The inquiry conclusion is logical and it should not appear as if mind has already been made up.

U. The principle of natural justice and reasonable opportunity is followed during conduct of Departmental proceedings.

V. The charge sheet is perceived on the basis of the Charge – Fact – Evidence correlation. This will help in analysing and appreciating evidence.

W. Charged Officer is examined in general about the circumstances appearing against him before closing the Inquiry.

X. Submission of written brief by Presenting Officer and Defence Assistant as per time fixed.

Y. Inquiry Report is written and submitted in a fortnight after receipt of written brief.

Presenting Officer is appointed for the purpose of presenting the case of the Disciplinary Authority and to help Inquiring Authority to find truth in the charge(s). Presenting Officer is required to lead the evidence of the Prosecution logically and forcefully before the Inquiring Authority and satisfactorily answer the contentions raised by the Charged Officer. Some of the broad responsibilities of the Presenting Officer are: -

A. Read the case in all its aspects and ramification and evolve a strategy for presentation of prosecution case;

B. Ensure inspection of Listed document as ordered by Inquiring Authority;

C. Produce accepted documents to Inquiring Authority for marking the same as exhibits and for taking them on record;

D. Evolve strategy for presentation of listed prosecution documents and witnesses in a logical sequence to prove the charge (s);

E. Present the prosecution case;

F. Ensure attendance of prosecution witness;

G. Lead the oral evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority;

H. Cross-examine and re-examine the Defence witness;

I. Seek permission of Inquiring Authority to introduce new evidence if considered necessary before conclusion of prosecution case;

J. Prepare and submit the Written Brief;

K. Keep the Disciplinary Authority posted with the progress of Inquiry by sending the brief of work done at the end of each hearing.

Para 17 of Chapter 15 of the Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities issued by ISTM (DoPT) describes in detail the responsibilities of the Presenting Officers during the Regular Hearing.

The CVOs are required to monitor the progress of inquiry proceedings including the quality of performance of Presenting Officers before the IO on a regular basis and keep the disciplinary authorities posted about it. While some of the Presenting Officers (POs) take a stand / position contrary to the stand / position stated in the charge-sheet without the explicit consent of the Disciplinary Authority. In some cases, the POs do not present some of the listed / relied upon documents. Further, in some cases, the POs do not even ensure that the listed witnesses are summoned and produced before the Inquiring Authority for examination and substantiating the position stated in the charge sheet. There are also instances where the POs have not sought additional documents to be produced before the IO even though they were felt essential for sustaining the charges / imputations.

The CVOs need to closely monitor the presentation of the case by the PO before the IO and ensure that the cases are suitably presented before the IO on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Further, for any of the observations in the conduct of the proceedings, the CVO is answerable. (CVC Circular No. 09/0//18 dated 2/.0/.2018: CVO to closely monitor presentation of case by Presenting Officer before the IO).

In the copy of the order appointing the Presenting Officer, endorsed to the Government servant concerned, he should be asked to finalize the selection of his Defence Assistant before the commencement of the proceedings. The Government servant may avail himself of the assistance of any other Government servant, as defined in Rule 2 (h) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, posted in any office either at this headquarters or at the place where inquiry is held. The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted at any other station if the Inquiring Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits.

If the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner, the Government servant will be so informed by the Disciplinary Authority as soon as the Presenting Officer has been appointed so that the Government servant may, if he so desires, engage a legal practitioner to present the case on his behalf before the Inquiry Officer. The Government servant may not otherwise engage a legal practitioner unless the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of a case, so permits. If for example, the facts and the mass of evidence are very complicated and a layman will be at sea to understand the implications thereof and prepare a proper defence, the facility of a lawyer should be allowed as part of the reasonable opportunity.

When on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the case is being presented by a Prosecuting Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation or by a Government Law Officer (such as Legal Adviser, Junior Legal Adviser), there are evidently good and sufficient circumstances for the Disciplinary Authority to exercise his discretion in favour of the delinquent officer and allow him to be represented by a legal practitioner. Any exercise of discretion to the contrary in such cases is likely to be held by the court as arbitrary and prejudicial to the defence of the delinquent Government servant.

No permission is needed by the charged Government servant to secure the assistance of any other Government servant. The latter also is not required to take permission for assisting the accused Government servant. It will, however, be necessary for him to obtain the permission of his controlling authority to absent himself from office in order to assist the charged Government servant during the inquiry. (CVC Circular No. 61/3/6/-C dated 08.01.1968- regarding Government servant assisting the delinquent officer)

Government servants involved in disciplinary proceedings may also take the assistance of retired Government servants. For details refer to chapter 16 of Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities published by DoPT. (DoPT O.M No. 35014/1/77-Estt(A) dated 24.08.1977 as amended by OM No. 11012/19/77-Estt(A) dated 03.06.1978 regarding retired Government servants assisting Government servants involved in disciplinary proceedings) (DoPT O.M No. 11012/11/2002-Estt(A) dated 05.02.2003 regarding Ceiling raised to seven cases for retired Government servants appearing as defence assistants)

The Government servant concerned must be posted in any office at the Headquarters of the CO or in any office where the inquiry is being held.

The person so appointed must not have three pending cases as Defence Assistant.

(Refer Chapter 16 of ‘Handbook for Inquiry officers and Disciplinary Authorities’ issued by DoPT)

On receipt of the report and the record of the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, if it is different from Inquiring Authority, will forward a copy of the inquiry report to the Government servant concerned, giving him an opportunity to make any representation or submission.

If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, it will, while recording its own findings, also record reasons for its disagreement, which will be provided to the Government servant concerned.

On receipt of his reply, or if no reply is received within the time allowed, the Disciplinary Authority will examine the report and record of the inquiry, including the points raised by the concerned Government servant, carefully and dispassionately and after satisfying itself that the Government servant has been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, will record its findings in respect of each article of charge saying whether, in its opinion, it stands proved or not.

If after considering the report of Inquiring Authority or after considering the reply of Government Servant to Inquiring Authority report, the Disciplinary Authority arrives at a conclusion which is not in conformity with Commission’s first stage advice, the case will be forwarded to the Commission along with tentative views, for second stage advice / reconsidered advice.

If the Disciplinary Authority considers that a clear finding is not possible or that there is any defect in the inquiry, e.g., the Inquiring Authority had taken into consideration certain factors without giving the delinquent officer an opportunity to defend himself in that regard, the Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report. The Inquiring Authority will, thereupon, proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as far as may be.

If the Disciplinary Authority comes to the conclusion that the inquiry was not made in conformity with principles of natural justice, it can also remit the case for further inquiry on all or some of the charges. (Observations of the Rajasthan High Court in Dwarka Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1959, Raj. 38) regarding holding of second Departmental inquiry)

The case for further Inquiry cannot be remitted to new Inquiry Officer. Further or de-novo Inquiry should be done by the same Inquiry Officer if original Inquiry Officer is available.

The discretion in this regard should be exercised by the Disciplinary Authority for adequate reasons to be recorded in writing. A further inquiry may be ordered, for example, when there are grave lacunae or procedural defects vitiating the first inquiry and not because the first inquiry had gone in favour of the delinquent officer. In latter type of cases, the Disciplinary Authority can, if it is satisfied on the evidence on record, disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority.

In respect of composite cases wherein the Commission had tendered its first stage advice for all categories of officers involved, second stage advice of the Commission should be sought only if the DA’s opinion is at variance with the Commission’s advice. This procedure would also apply to CBI investigated cases involving officials not falling under the jurisdiction of the CVC wherein the Commission had rendered its advice (cases where there were differences between the CBI and the DA and which were referred to the CVC for advice). (CVC Office order No. 03/01/10 dated 28.01.2010 – Clarification regarding making reference to the Commission for advice on complaints and second stage advice cases)

The consultation with CVO for second stage advice in respect of such cases where the Disciplinary Authority proposes to impose a penalty which is in line with the CVO’s first stage advice in respect of Category ‘B’ officers (in non - CVC referred cases of individual cases or composite cases) may be dispensed with. However, in disciplinary cases of officers, where the DA tentatively proposes to take any action which is at variance with the CVO’s first stage advice would continue to be referred to the CVO for obtaining second stage advice.

The Commission vide Circular No. 08/12/14 dated 03.12.2014 prescribed the procedure on similar lines for processing CVC referable cases of Category A officers as well as composite cases involving Category ‘B’ officers, wherein CVC had tendered first stage advice. (CVC Circular No. 05/0//18 dated 10.0/.2018: Second stage Consultation with CVOs of Departments / Organizations in disciplinary cases of Category ‘B’ officers.)

Following material should be furnished to the Commission while seeking its second stage advice:

1. A copy of the charge sheet issued to the public servant;

2. A copy of the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiring Authority (along with a spare copy for the Commission’s records);

3. The entire case records of the inquiry, viz. copies of the depositions, daily order sheets, exhibits, written briefs of the Presenting Officer and the Charged Officer;

4. Comments of the CVO and the Disciplinary Authority on the assessment of evidence done by the Inquiring Authority and also on further course to be taken on the Inquiry Report.

(CVC Circular No. 14/3/06 dated 13.03.2006- Reference to the Commission for its advice- Documents including the draft charge sheet to be enclosed for seeking first stage advice and the documents to be enclosed for seeking second stage advice reg.)

The Commission, therefore, has decided to dispense with consultation for reconsideration of its second stage advice. Hence, no proposal for reconsideration of the Commission’s second stage advice would be entertained. (CVC Office Order No. 10/09/20 dated 09.09.2020: Reference to the Commission for reconsideration of its advice- Dispensing with reconsideration of second stage advice)

The Commission’s second stage advice is tendered based on inputs received from Departments / Organisations which includes all material / information pertaining to the individual disciplinary case. Further in most of the cases, Commission had reiterated its earlier advice tendered at second stage and in almost all such proposals, no new material / additional facts were brought out by the Departments / Organisations to justify any change. Also, in such cases or second stage advice, there is little scope for reconsideration. Such proposals also result in avoidable delays in finalization / issue of final orders by the Disciplinary Authority concerned.

Based on the recommendations of the Hota Committee (Committee of Experts to review the procedure of Disciplinary/Vigilance Inquiries and recommended measures for their expeditious disposal), DoPT, vide its OM No. No.372/19/2011-AVD-Ill (Pt.1) dated the 26th September, 2011 has dispensed with second stage consultation with CVC in disciplinary matters where UPSC is consulted. However, in those cases where consultation with UPSC is not required as per extant rules/instructions, the second stage consultation with CVC should continue.

The disciplinary authority has its power to disagree with the recommendation of the CVC. But he could not finalise the proceedings without further consultation with the CVC. This aspect has been clarified vide CVC circular No.15/4/08 dated 24th April, 2008, as under:

“The Commission has, therefore, decided that no proposal for reconsideration of the Commission’s advice would be entertained unless new additional facts have come to light which would have the effect of altering the seriousness of the allegations/charges levelled against an officer. Such new facts should be substantiated by adequate evidence and should also be explained as to why the evidence was not considered earlier, while approaching the Commission for its advice. The proposals for reconsideration of the advices, if warranted, should be submitted at the earliest but within two months of receipt of the Commission’s advice. The proposals should be submitted by the disciplinary authority or it should clearly indicate that the proposal has the approval of the disciplinary authority.”

All cases, where the Disciplinary Authority (DA) decides to impose a penalty after conclusion of the proceedings and where UPSC consultation is required as per existing rules / instructions, shall not be referred to the CVC for second stage consultation.

The CVC Circular No. 8/12/14 dated 03.12.2014 stipulates that all such cases where the DA proposes to take any action which is at variance with the Commission’s first stage advice would continue to be referred to the Commission for obtaining second stage advice. However, the aforementioned Circular applies only to the disciplinary cases of non- Presidential appointees including officials of CPSEs, Public Sector Banks, and Autonomous Bodies, etc.

The above instructions do not apply to the cases of the officers of Group A services of the Central Government, All India Services (AIS) and such other categories of officers of the Central Government where consultation with UPSC is necessary before imposition of any of the prescribed penalties.

In a situation where on conclusion of the departmental proceedings, DA is of the tentative view that no formal penalty needs to be imposed in respect of officers of Group ‘A’ services of the Central Government, of All India Services (AIS) & such other categories of officers of the Central Government and refers the case for second stage consultation with CVC and if CVC advises imposition of a penalty which the DA on consideration decides not to accept, then this becomes a case of disagreement between DA and CVC which as per standing instructions require resolution by DoPT.

(DoPT O.M No. 3/2/3/201/-AVD.Ill dated 01.03.201/: Procedure for dealing with cases of disagreement between Disciplinary Authority and CVC — instructions regarding consultation with UPSC thereof)

It is in the public interest as well as in the interest of the employees that disciplinary proceedings should be dealt with expeditiously. At the same time, the Disciplinary Authorities must apply their mind to all relevant facts which are brought out in the inquiry before forming an opinion about the imposition of a penalty, if any, on the Government servant. In cases which do not require consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission or the UPSC, it should normally be possible for the Disciplinary Authority to take a final decision on the inquiry report within a period of 3 months at the most. In cases where the Disciplinary Authority feels that it is not possible to adhere to this time limit, a report may be submitted by him to the next higher authority indicating the additional period within which the case is likely to be disposed of and the reasons for the same. In cases where consultation with the UPSC and the CVC is required, every effort should be made to ensure that such cases are disposed of as quickly as possible. (DoPT O.M No. 39/43//0-Ests(A) dated 08.01.19/1 regarding taking of expeditious action by Disciplinary Authorities on the reports of Inquiring Authorities) (DoPT OM No. 11012/21/98-Estt(A), dated 11.11.1998 regarding final orders should be passed within three months)

After considering the advice of the UPSC, where the UPSC is consulted, the Disciplinary Authority will decide whether the Government servant should be exonerated or whether a penalty should be imposed upon him and will make an order accordingly.

In determining the quantum of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority should take into account only that material which the Government servant had the opportunity to rebut. The object is to ensure that no material of which the Government servant was not given prior notice and which he was not given adequate opportunity of rebutting or defending himself against should be taken into account for deciding the extent of punishment to be awarded.

The order should be signed by the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose the penalty. In a case in which the competent authority is the President, the order should be signed by an officer authorized to authenticate order issued in the name of the President under Article 77(2) of the Constitution.

The Commission’s view / advice in disciplinary cases is advisory in nature and it is for the DA concerned to take a reasoned decision by applying its own mind. The DA while passing the final order, has to state that the Commission has been consulted and after due application of mind, the final order have been passed. Further, in the speaking order of the DA, the Commission’s advice should not be quoted verbatim. (CVC Circular No. 02/01/09 dated 15.01.2009 regarding need for self- contained speaking and reasoned order to be issued by the Authorities exercising Disciplinary powers) (DoPT O.M No. 134/11/81-AVD-I dated 13.0/.1981 regarding the need for issuing ‘Speaking orders” in disciplinary cases)

The disciplinary proceedings against employees conducted under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or under any other corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial in nature and therefore, it is necessary that orders issued by such authorities should have the attributes of a judicial order. The recording of reasons in support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy, or reached on ground of policy or expediency. Such orders passed by the competent Disciplinary / Appellate Authority as do not contain the reasons on the basis whereof the decisions communicated by that order were reached, are liable to be held invalid if challenged in a court of law.

All Disciplinary / Appellate Authorities should issue a self-contained, speaking and reasoned orders conforming to the legal requirements, which must indicate, inter-alia, the application of mind by the authority issuing the order especially when they differ with the advice / recommendation of CVO or Inquiry officer or the Commission as the case may be giving cogent reasons thereof.

In all orders issued in disciplinary matters, the name and designation of DA should also be clearly indicated. (CVC Circular No. 003/DSP/3 dated 15.09.2003-Need for self-contained speaking and reasoned order to be issued by the authorities exercising disciplinary powers) (CVC Circular No. 02/05/2014 dated 19.05.2014-Need for self-contained speaking and reasoned order to be issued by the authorities exercising disciplinary powers)

The order made by the Disciplinary Authority will be communicated to the Government servant together with: -

A. a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority, if not supplied already;

B. a statement of findings of the Disciplinary Authority on the Inquiring Authority’s report together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, if not supplied already;

C. a copy of the advice, if any, given by the UPSC and where the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the advice of the UPSC a brief statement of the reasons for such non- acceptance.

[DoPT No. 11012/12/2010-Estt(A) dated 12.11.2010 regarding Communicating tentative reasons for disagreement under Rule 15(2)]

A copy of the order will also be sent to: -

A. the Central Vigilance Commission in cases in which the Commission has given advice;

B. the UPSC in cases in which they have been consulted;

C. to the Head of Department or office where the Government servant is employed for the time being unless the Disciplinary Authority itself is the Head of the Department or office; and

D. to the SPE in cases in which action was recommended by the agency.

While passing an order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority should define the scope of the punishment in clear term.

The CVOs to ensure that wherever it has been finally decided to disagree with the Commission’s advice, reasons for the same are communicated to the Commission along with a copy of final order in the case, to enable the Commission to decide about inclusion of the case in its Annual Report. (CVC Circular No. 006/VGL/098 dated 10.10.2006- difference of opinion with CVC advice)

When a decision is recorded by a Disciplinary Authority (other than the Head of the State) at the conclusion of the Departmental proceedings, the decision is final and cannot be varied by that authority itself or by its successor-in-office before it is formally communicated to the Government servant concerned. The IA and DA are quasi-judicial authority but order / decision of DA is judicial in nature and can be changed only by Appellate Authority.

When a decision is taken by or in the name of the Head of State as a Disciplinary Authority, it is open to Disciplinary Authority to vary or alter the opinions or advice. Once, however, the decision is recorded in the name of the Head of the State, it cannot be varied or altered. This, of course, is subject to the exercise of powers of review or revision expressly conferred upon the Head of the State by rules. The decision once recorded by the Disciplinary Authority can only be changed by Appellate Authority / Revising Authority / Reviewing Authority.

The report of the Inquiring Authority is intended to assist the Disciplinary Authority in coming to a conclusion about the guilt of the Government servant. Its findings are not binding on the Disciplinary Authority who can disagree with them and come to its own conclusion on the basis of its own assessment of the evidence forming part of the record of the inquiry.

In cases where the Disciplinary Authority (DA), on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, proposes to impose a penalty which is in line with the Commission’s first stage advice in respect of officers falling within the jurisdiction of the Commission, second stage advice of the Commission is not required. Such cases would be dealt at the level of the CVO and DA concerned in the Organisation / Department. However, the CVO should forward a copy of the final order issued by DA in all such cases of officers for Commission’s record. All such cases, where the Disciplinary Authority proposes to take any action which is at variance with the Commission’s first stage advice, would be referred to the Commission for obtaining second stage advice (Para 7.28.3 may also be referred).

The CVO would exercise proper check and supervision over such cases and would ensure that the cases are disposed of expeditiously within the time norms stipulated by the Commission; and will ensure that the punishment awarded to the concerned officer is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct established on his part. The Commission may depute its officers to conduct vigilance audit through onsite visits to check the compliance. If the Commission comes across any matter, which in its opinion, has not been handled properly, it may recommend its review by the appropriate authority or may give such directions as it considers appropriate. (CVC Circular No. 08/12/14 dated 03.12.2014- Second stage consultation with the CVC in disciplinary cases)

In vigilance parlance, any source of information about a vigilance misdeed in the organization is a complaint. Para 3.1 of the Vigilance Manual (2005 Ed) defines complaint as “Receipt of information about corruption, malpractice or misconduct on the part of public servants, from whatever source, would be termed as a complaint.” Further para 3.2.1 of the above manual gives a non-exhaustive list of what all constitutes complaint. Thus, an inspection report, press clipping, property transaction reports under the Conduct Rules, etc. fall within the ambit of complaint, if they throw any light on the misdeed in the organization.

Even in the complaints received from the public or the employees of the organization, there used to be umpteen instances when the author might not have intended that to be a complaint but the communication provided valuable information about an organized crime in the organization and therefore it was treated and registered as a complaint. Some such instances are:

(a) A letter was received from a former employee of the organization seeking arrears of salary for the part of the month in which he was relieved on acceptance of his resignation. While trying to take some reference number from the old pay bill, it turned out that somebody was collecting pay in the name of the resigned employee continuously for several months after the said employee resigned from service.

(b) A representation was received from an employee stating that his name was missing in the seniority list of group ‘D’ employees of the organization. While attempting to check the reasons for this omission, it emerged that the employee in question and several others were appointed through forged appointment orders issued by a racket.

On receipt of a complaint, it is checked whether it has a vigilance angle. If it has vigilance angle, it is entered in the appropriate part of the register prescribed by the Vigilance Manual.

Para 1.6.1 of the Vigilance Manual explains what is Vigilance Angle. According to Vigilance Manual, obtaining illegal gratification of any kind by corrupt means or by abusing official position, possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, misappropriation, forgery, cheating and other criminal offences are cases having vigilance angle

Cases of unauthorized absence, overstayal, insubordination, use of abusive language, etc. do not have any vigilance angle.

There are some border line cases, such as gross or willful negligence; recklessness in decision making; blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of discretion in excess, where no ostensible public interest is evident; failure to keep the controlling authority/superiors informed in time – these are some of the irregularities where the disciplinary authority with the help of the CVO should carefully study the case and weigh the circumstances to come to a conclusion whether there is reasonable ground to doubt the integrity of the officer concerned.

There are two parts of register for recording complaints. One part of the register is meant for registering the complaints in respect of category ‘A’ officers i.e. those in respect of whom the advice of the CVC is required. The other part pertains to Category ‘B’ officers are those in respect of whom CVC advice is not required.

As far as central Government employees are concerned Category ‘A’ refers to Group ‘A’ officers -

If a complaint involves both the categories of officers, it shall be entered in the higher category i.e. category ‘A’.

Para 3.8.1 of the CVC Manual provides that as a general rule, no action is to be taken by the administrative authorities on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints received by them. It is also open to the administrative authorities to verify by enquiring from the signatory of the complaint whether it had actually been sent by him so as to ascertain whether it is pseudonymous.

CVC has also laid down that if any department/organisation proposes to look into any verifiable facts alleged in such complaints, it may refer the matter to the Commission seeking its concurrence through the CVO or the head of the organisation, irrespective of the level of employees involved therein.

Besides, any complaint referred to by the Commission is required to be investigated and if it emerges to be a pseudonymous, the matter must be reported to the Commission.

If a complaint is found to be malicious, vexatious or unfounded, departmental or criminal action as necessary should be initiated against the author of false complaints.

A complaint which is registered can be dealt with as follow:

(a) file it without or after investigation; or

(b) to pass it on to the CBI for investigation/appropriate action; or

(c) to pass it on to the concerned administrative authority for appropriate action on the ground that no vigilance angle is involved; or

(d) to take up for detailed investigation by the departmental vigilance agency.

A Complaint will be treated as disposed of either on issue of charge-sheet or final decision for closing or dropping the complaint.

Para 1.6.1 of the Vigilance Manual explains what is Vigilance Angle. According to Vigilance Manual, obtaining illegal gratification of any kind by corrupt means or by abusing official position, possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, misappropriation, forgery, cheating and other criminal offences are cases having vigilance angle.

As far as central Government employees are concerned Category ‘A’ refers to Group ‘A’ officers.