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.

When the genuineness of any complaint is established after verification of the said complaint, preliminary investigation at the appropriate level should be conducted immediately:

(a) When one complaint has been received by the authority and found genuine after verification and

(b) Any kind of information/letters/reports from the sources mentioned in the Para 3.1 of Vigilance Manual 2021, Chapter-III received at the appropriate level.

Preliminary Inquiry is conducted for ascertaining and verifying the facts alleged in a complaint. It generally involves collection of documents and other evidence, obtaining statement of witnesses, their verification and scrutiny to bring out the truth. In common parlance, it is also referred to as Vigilance Investigation. Investigation into the criminal offence is conducted by CBI or a Police Officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19/3. The Preliminary Enquiry is thus different from an investigation into criminal offence, as powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19/3 are not vested with the Inquiry Officer.

A. CBI / ACB of UTs: As soon as a decision has been taken by the competent authority to investigate the allegations contained in a complaint, it will be necessary to decide whether the allegations should be enquired into departmentally or whether a police investigation is necessary. As a general rule, investigation into allegations of the types given below should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or to the Anti-Corruption Branch in the Union Territories:

Allegations involving offences punishable under law which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are authorised to investigate; such as offences involving bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, etc.;

B. Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income: Cases in which the allegations are such that their truth cannot be ascertained without making inquiries from non-official persons; or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of accounts, etc. Other cases of a complicated nature requiring expert police investigation.

C. Local police: In cases in which the allegations are such as to indicate prima facie that a criminal offence has been committed but the offence is one which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are not authorised to investigate, the case should be handed over to the local police authorities.

D. Departmental agency: In cases where allegations relate to a misconduct other than an offence, or to a departmental irregularity or negligence, and the alleged facts are capable of verification or inquiry within the Department / Office, the inquiry / investigation should be made departmentally.

E. Consultation with CBI: In certain cases, the allegations may be of both types. In such cases, it should be decided in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation as to which of the allegations should be dealt with departmentally and which should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

F. Allegations difficult to segregate: If there is any difficulty in separating the allegations for separate investigation in the manner suggested above, the better course would be to entrust the whole case to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Once a case has been referred to and taken up by the CBI for investigation, further investigation should be left to them and a parallel investigation by the Departmental agencies should be avoided. Further action by the Department in such matters should be taken on completion of investigation by the CBI on the basis of their report. However, the departmental agency is not precluded from investigating the non-criminal misconducts in such matters for achieving quick results and if they decide to do so, the CBI should be informed of the non-criminal aspects which the departmental agency is investigating. Further, if the Departmental proceedings have already been initiated on the basis of investigations conducted by the Departmental agencies, the administrative authorities may proceed with such Departmental proceedings. In such cases, it would not be necessary for the CBI to investigate those allegations, which are the subject matter of the Departmental inquiry proceedings, unless the CBI apprehends criminal misconduct on the part of the official(s) concerned. CVC Circular No. 99/VGL/8/ dated 30.09.2005 may be kept in view.

Instances have come to the notice of the Commission that while CBI is investigating allegations made in a complaint against a public servant on issues involving criminal misconduct, the concerned organisation does not take up investigation into other misconducts contained either in the same complaint or in other complaints which are of departmental nature, pending investigation by CBI. It is to be clarified that the concerned organisation shall enquire / investigate on issues which are not being investigated by CBI and take the matter to logical conclusion as per laid down procedure. Further, if CBI is investigating criminal misconduct by a bank employee or a borrower relating to some loan / fraud / forging of accounts, etc., the bank must not wait for CBI to complete its investigation to initiate action for recovery.

The Commission has issued instructions that investigations into criminal misconduct including financial irregularities and frauds should be entrusted to the CBI. Such cases are to be entrusted to the CBI if the allegations (i) are criminal in nature (e.g., bribery, corruption, forgery, criminal breach of trust, possession of assets disproportionate to known source of income, cheating, etc. or (ii) require inquiries to be made from non-official persons; or (iii) involve examination of private records; or (iv) need expert police investigation for arriving at a conclusion; or (v) need investigation abroad. Further, the CVOs of the CPSEs are also required to interact frequently and exchange information with CBI on a quarterly basis. The CPSEs should ordinarily send to the CBI only cases involving transactions not less than 25 lakhs or otherwise possessing national or international ramifications; and other cases are to be sent to the local police authorities.

As a general rule, investigations into criminal matters involving officials of the CPSEs should be entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI with the approval of the CMD. If involvement of officials of the CPSE is prima-facie not evident, the matter should be referred to the Economic Offences Wing of CBI. Criminal matters of the above nature would be referred to the local police / State police only in matters wherein CBI has refused / rejected to take up investigations or where transaction value is less than Rs. 25 lakhs.

In cases of Public Sector Banks, the monetary limits as described in Para to 8.13.3 of Chapter VIII would be followed while referring financial fraud to the CBI and the local / State Police.

Further, CVOs of the CPSEs or PSBs are required to interact frequently and exchange information with CBI on quarterly basis. In their Quarterly Performance Reports, CVO should report regularly to the Commission the details of cases / matters noticed in the CPSEs or PSBs and the action taken status thereon.

All Chief Vigilance Officers, subject to the administrative approval of the Chief Executive concerned, have complete discretion to refer the above types of cases to the CBI. In case of difference of opinion between the CVO and the Chief Executive, matter needs to be referred to the Commission.

In our department, the practice is that, at least Regional/Circle level will take decision whether the case will be referred to the CBI or not for investigation. Logic of the practice is that the HAG Officers are equivalent to the rank of CVO and the Regional Heads are also enjoying powers of the Head of Circle. After decision has been taken by the appropriate level, concerned divisional head is being asked to make correspondences with the CBI Authority and ED Authority for registration of the case.

After it has been decided that the allegations contained in the complaint should be enquired departmentally, the vigilance officer should proceed to make a preliminary enquiry with a view to determining whether there is, prima facie, some substance in the allegations. The preliminary enquiry may be made in several ways depending upon the nature of allegations and the judgment of the enquiry officer, e.g.: -

If the allegations contain information which can be verified from any document or file or any other departmental records, the enquiry / vigilance officer should, without loss of time, secure such records, etc., for personal inspection. If any of the papers examined is found to contain evidence supporting the allegations, such papers should be taken over by him for retention by the vigilance Department to guard against the possibility of available evidence being tampered with. If the papers in question are required for any current action, it may be considered whether the purpose would not be served by substituting authenticated copies of the relevant portions of the records; the original being retained by the enquiry officer in his custody. If that is not considered feasible for any reason, the officer requiring the documents or papers in question for current action should be made responsible for their safe custody after retaining authenticated copies for the purpose of enquiry;

In case, where the alleged facts are likely to be known to other employees of the Department, the enquiry officer should interrogate them orally or ask for their written statements. The enquiry officer should make a full record of the oral interrogation which the person interrogated should be asked to sign in token of confirmation. Wherever necessary, any important facts disclosed during oral interrogation or in written statements should be verified by documentary or collateral evidence to make sure of the facts;

In case, it is found necessary to make inquiries from the employees of any other Government Department or office, the investigating officer may seek the assistance of the Department concerned, through its CVO, for providing facility for interrogating the person(s) concerned and / or taking their written statements;

In certain types of complaints, particularly those pertaining to works, the enquiry officer may find it helpful to make a site inspection, or a surprise check, to verify the facts on the spot and also to take suitable action to ensure that the evidence found there, in support of the allegations, is not disturbed;

If during the course of enquiry, it is found that it will be necessary to collect evidence from non-official persons or to examine any papers or documents in their possession, investigation in the matter may be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

In cases where the inquiry is being conducted on a reference made by the Commission under section 8 of the CVC Act, 2003, the assistance of the Commission could also be sought. Under section 11 of the CVC Act, 2003, while conducting any inquiry for the cases under its jurisdiction, the Commission have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in particular, in respect of following matters namely, (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses or other documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

Regulation 4 of Central Vigilance Commission (Procedure for Dealing with Complaints and Procedure of Inquiry) Regulations, 2021 may also be referred for conduct of inquiry by CVOs and the standard formats prescribed in the Schedule annexed to the Regulations for issuing various processes may be utilised for the purpose of the inquiry. These standard formats have been derived from Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and wherever necessary other formats for processes may also be utilised from Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherever applicable, with such modifications as deemed necessary.

If the public servant complained against is in-charge of stores, equipment, etc., and there is a possibility of his tampering with the records pertaining to such stores or equipment, the enquiry / vigilance officer may consider whether the public servant concerned should not be transferred immediately to other duties. If considered necessary, he may seek the assistance of the Head of the Department or Office in doing so.

While, normally, the preliminary enquiry will be made by the vigilance officer himself, he may suggest to the administrative authority to entrust the inquiry to any other officer considered suitable in the particular circumstances of the case, e.g., it may be advisable to entrust the conduct of the preliminary enquiry to a technical officer if it is likely to involve examination and appreciation of technical data or documents. Similarly, the administrative authority may entrust the inquiry to an officer of sufficiently higher status if the public servant complained against is of a senior rank.

While conducting the inquiry, it is recommended that the Enquiry Officer may take the help of the Scientific Tools and Forensic Tools to aid the enquiry / investigation, whenever required. It is described in Chapter XI of Vigilance Manual, 2021.

During the course of preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Department, the public servant concerned may be given an opportunity to say what he may have to say about the allegations against him to find out if he is in a position to give any satisfactory information or explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is likely to be proceeded against unjustifiably. It is, therefore, desirable that the enquiry officer tries to obtain the suspect officers’ version of “facts” and why an inquiry should not be held. There is no question of making available to him any document at this stage. Such an opportunity, however, may not be given in cases in which a decision to institute Departmental proceedings is to be taken without any loss of time, e.g., in a case in which the public servant concerned is due to retire or to superannuate soon and it is necessary to issue a charge-sheet to him before his retirement; the facts are not in dispute; officer is not traceable; the officer is deliberately delaying his reports, etc.

On completion of the enquiry process, the officer conducting the enquiry would prepare a self-contained report including the material available to controvert the defence. The enquiry report should contain the explanation of the suspect officer. The fact that an opportunity was given to the officer concerned should be mentioned in the enquiry report even if the officer did not avail of it. The enquiry officer should also take all connected documents in his possession as this becomes very helpful if Departmental action has to be taken against the officer.

The enquiry officer will submit his report to the CVO, who will decide whether on the basis of the facts disclosed in the report of the preliminary enquiry, the complaint should be dropped or whether regular Departmental proceedings should be recommended against the public servant concerned or the administration of a warning or caution would serve the purpose. He will forward the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority, along with his own recommendations, for appropriate decision.

The CVO, while submitting his report / comments to the disciplinary authority in the organisation, may also endorse an advance copy of the inquiry report to the Commission if the officials involved are under the jurisdiction of the Commission, so that it may keep a watch over deliberate attempts to shield the corrupt public servants either by delaying the submission of inquiry report to the Commission or by diluting the gravity of the offences / misconducts. The inquiry report of the CVO should broadly conform to the instructions issued vide Commission’s Circular No. 21/8/09 dated 06.08.2009.

The decision, whether departmental action is to be taken against a public servant should be taken by the authority competent to award appropriate penalty specified in the C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1965 or relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules. In cases, where during the course of the preliminary inquiry or before a decision is taken on the report of the preliminary inquiry, a public servant is transferred to another post, the decision should be taken by the disciplinary authority of the latter post. The Commission’s advice would, however, be obtained in respect of officer falling under category ‘A’ before the competent authority takes a final decision in the matter. In respect of officer falling under category ‘B’, if there persists an unresolved difference of opinion between the Chief Vigilance Officer and the disciplinary authority concerned about the course of action to be taken, the matter would be reported by the CVO to the Chief Executive for appropriate direction.

As soon as it is decided by the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against the public servant(s) concerned, the complaint should be regarded as having taken the shape of a vigilance case.

Enquiry against an officer on deputation should be carried out by the CVO of the organisation where the misconduct has occurred. However, when enquiry has started against an officer, who is on deputation, by parent Department, it will be appropriate if parent Department sends an intimation to that effect to the borrowing organisation. In such cases, the result of final enquiry should also be sent to the borrowing organisation. Further, where enquiry was initiated by the parent organisation in respect of an officer for a misconduct in the parent organisation and the officer proceeds on deputation, the CVO of the parent organisation shall take the matter to a logical conclusion and not transfer to CVO of the organisation in which the suspect officer is on deputation.

If a misconduct is detected in the borrowing Department / Organization on the part of an officer after his repatriation to his parent Department / Organization, the then borrowing Department / Organization should bring the fact of the matter to the notice of the parent Department / Organization which will decide the further course of action. It should be noted that only the current disciplinary authority under whom an officer is functioning including the parent department, is competent under relevant CDA rules to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.

Enquiry into the allegations against officers under suspension, or those about to retire should be given the highest priority. It should also be ensured that there is sufficient time for processing the enquiry reports involving retiring and retired employees so that the matter does not get time barred for action (if warranted) under the Pension Rules or Regulations. Sending cases of retiring officials close to their retirement / superannuation to the Commission should be avoided. Such cases may be sent to the Commission preferably three months in advance in the prescribed format duly approved by the competent authority.

If an officer against whom enquiry or investigation is pending, irrespective of whether he has been placed under suspension or not, submits his request for resignation, such request should not normally be accepted or taken. Where, however, the acceptance of resignation is considered necessary in the public interest, because the alleged offence(s) do not involve moral turpitude; or the evidence against the officer is not strong enough to justify the assumption that if the proceedings are continued, the officer would be removed or dismissed from service; or the proceedings are likely to be so protracted that it would be cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation, the resignation may be accepted with the prior approval of the Head of the Department in the case of holders of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts and that of the Minister-in-charge in respect of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. Prior concurrence of the Commission should also be obtained, in respect of the officers falling under its jurisdiction, before submitting the case to the Minister-in-charge, if the Commission had advised initiation of Departmental action against the officer concerned or such action had been initiated on the advice of the Commission.

In case of Group ‘B’ officers serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, such a resignation may be accepted with the prior approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Approval of the Commission should also be obtained if the Commission has tendered advice in respect of that officer.

If during an enquiry or investigation, the SPE or the CVO finds that a public servant, against whom the Commission’s advice is necessary, has made a full and true disclosure implicating himself and other public servants or members of the public and that such statement is free from malice, the IG / SPE or the CVO, as the case may be, may send his recommendation to the Commission regarding grant of immunity / leniency to such person from the Departmental action or punishment. The Commission will consider the recommendation in consultation with the administrative Ministry / Department / Organisation concerned and advise that authority regarding the course of further action to be taken.

In cases investigated by the CBI, if it is decided to grant immunity to such a person from Departmental action, the Commission will advise the SPE whether to produce him at the appropriate time before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction for the grant of pardon u/s 337 of Cr.P.C.; or to withdraw prosecution at the appropriate stage u/s 494 of Cr.P.C.

In cases pertaining to the officials against whom Commission’s advice is not necessary, the recommendation for grant of immunity / leniency from Departmental action and for the grant of pardon u/s 337 of Cr.P.C.; or for the withdrawal of prosecution u/s 494 of Cr.P.C may be made to the Chief Vigilance Officer, who will consider and advise the disciplinary authority regarding the course of further action to be taken. If there is a difference of opinion between the SPE and the administrative authorities or between the CVO and the disciplinary authority, the SPE or the CVO, as the case may be, will refer the matter to the Commission for advice.

The intention behind the procedure prescribed above is not to grant immunity / leniency in all kinds of cases but only in cases of serious nature and that too on merits. It is not open to the public servant involved in a case to request for such immunity / leniency. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide in consultation with the Commission or the CVO, as the case may be, in which case such an immunity / leniency may be considered and granted in the interest of satisfactory prosecution of the disciplinary case.

No.006/VGL/022

Government of India Central Vigilance Commission

Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’, GPO Complex, INA,

New Delhi- 110 023

Dated the 28th March 2006

Circular No.16/3/06

Sub: Protection against victimisation of officials of the Vigilance Units of various Ministries/Departments/organisations.

The Commission has viewed seriously certain instances of harassment and attempts at victimisation of vigilance officials of certain organisations. The need to allow the vigilance officials to work independently and freely without any fear, which is the foundation for effective vigilance administration in any organisation, has been recognized since long. In fact, the Committee on Prevention of Corruption (Santhanam Committee) had recommended that “those posted to the Vigilance Organisations should not have the fear of returning to their parent cadre with the possibility of facing the anger and displeasure of those against whom they made inquiries”. The Committee had also recommended that “those working in Vigilance Organisations should have an assurance that good and efficient work in the Vigilance Organisation will enhance their opportunities for promotion and not become a sort of disqualification”.

2. The Commission has considered the problem of possible victimisation of Vigilance officials after they finish their tenure in the Vigilance Department and revert to their normal duties. In the case of CVOs, already, the Commission, as Accepting Authority, is in a position to moderate, if necessary, any biased reporting against the CVO in his ACR. Similarly, the Commission has always been extremely careful and cautious while taking cognizance of complaints against the CVOs and as a matter of principle always obtains the CVOs’ response before coming to any conclusion on the need to investigate such complaints.

3. In order that the required degree of protection is conferred on the Vigilance officials supporting the CVO and keeping in view the spirit of the Santhanam Committee which with commendable foresight had anticipated very clearly some of these issues, the Commission issues the following consolidated instructions in exercise of its powers under Section 8 (1) (h) of the CVC Act:

(i) All personnel in Vigilance Units will be posted only in consultation with and the concurrence of the CVOs. They will be for an initial tenure of three years extendable up to five years. Any premature reversion before the expiry of such tenure will only be with the concurrence of the CVO. The CVO shall bring to the notice of the Commission any deviation from the above.

(ii) The ACR of personnel working in the Vigilance Department will be written by the CVO and reviewed by appropriate authority prescribed under the relevant conduct rules. The remarks in review shall be perused by the CVO and in case he has reservations about the comments made under the review, he shall take it up with the Chief Executive/HOD to resolve the issue. In case he is unable to do this, he shall report the matter to the Commission who will intercede in the matter suitably.

(iii) Since the problem of victimisation occurs, if at all, after the reversion of the personnel to their normal line departments, the Commission would reiterate the following:

(a) On such reversion the vigilance personnel shall not be posted to work under an officer against whom, while working in the vigilance department, he had undertaken verification of complaints or detailed investigation thereafter. Needless to say his ACR shall not be written by such officer/s.

(b) All such Vigilance personnel will be deemed to be under the Commission’s purview for purposes of consultation in disciplinary matters. This is irrespective of their grade. This cover will be extended to a period of not less than five years from the date of reversion from the vigilance department.

(c) All Vigilance personnel on reversion shall be entitled to represent through the CVO and chief executive of the organisation to the Commission if they perceive any victimisation as a consequence of their working in the Vigilance department. This would include transfers, denial of promotion or any administrative action not considered routine or normal. This protection will be extended for a period not less than five years after the reversion of such personnel from the vigilance department.

4. The above instructions may be noted for strict compliance. The CVO should report promptly to the Commission, the details of any real or perceived victimisation of any official who is working in the Vigilance Unit. Similarly, he should also report such instances pertaining to the former officials of the Vigilance Unit, up to a period of five years after they had completed their tenure in the Vigilance Unit. He should also report where such deserving officials are ignored/superseded in matters of promotion.

(V. Kannan) Director

To: All CMDs of Public Sector Undertakings/Public Sector Banks All Chief Vigilance Officers

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.

In cases in which the Disciplinary Authority decides that proceedings should be initiated for imposing a minor penalty, the Disciplinary Authority will inform the Government servant concerned in writing of the proposal to take action against him by a Memorandum accompanied by a statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour for which action is proposed to be taken, giving him such time as may be considered reasonable, ordinarily not exceeding ten days, for making such representation as the Government servant may wish to make against the proposal. In this Memorandum, no mention should be made of the nature of the penalty which may be imposed. The Memorandum and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour should be drafted by the Chief Vigilance Officer / Vigilance Officer. The memorandum should be signed by the Disciplinary Authority and not by any one else on its behalf.

If the competent Disciplinary Authority in respect of the Government servant against whom action proposed to be taken is the President, the file should be shown to the Minister concerned before the charge-sheet is issued and the memorandum should be signed in the name of the President by an officer competent to authenticate orders on behalf of the President under Article 77 (2) of the Constitution.

Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 does not provide for the accused Government servant being given the facility of inspecting records for preparing his written statement of defence. There may, however, be cases in which documentary evidence provides the main grounds for the action proposed to be taken. The denial of access to records in such cases may handicap the Government servant in preparing his representation. Request for inspection of records in such cases may be considered by the Disciplinary Authority on merits.

After taking into consideration the representation of the Government servant or without it if no such representation is received from him by the date specified, the Disciplinary Authority will proceed, after taking into account such evidence, as it may think fit, to record its findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.

If as a result of its examination of the case and after taking the representation made by the Government servant into account, the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that the allegations have not been proved, it may exonerate the Government servant. An intimation of such exoneration will be sent to the Government servant in writing.

In case the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the allegations against the Government servant, stand substantiated, it may impose upon him any of the minor penalties specified in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

In cases in which minor penalty proceedings were instituted on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, consultation with the Commission at the stage of imposition of the penalty is not necessary if the Disciplinary Authority decides to impose one of the minor penalties specified in Rule11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or other corresponding rules. In such cases a copy of the order imposing minor penalty should be endorsed to the Commission. However, where the Disciplinary Authority decides not to impose any of the minor penalties, consultation with the Commission is necessary.

(CVC Letter No. DSP 14 dated 29.11.80 regarding second stage advice in case of minor penalty) (CVC Circular No. 1/14/70-R dated 20.09.1973 regarding procedure of consultation with Central Vigilance Commission in minor penalty proceedings) (CVC Circular No. 1/14/70-R, dated 20.07.1970 regarding making of a second reference to the Commission)

In case the Government servant is one whose services had been borrowed from another Department or, office of a State Government or a local or other, authority and if other borrowing authority, who has the powers of Disciplinary Authority for the purposes of conducting a disciplinary proceedings against him, is of the opinion that any of the minor penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 should be imposed, it may make such orders on the case as it deems necessary after consultation with the lending authority. In the event of difference of opinion between the borrowing authority and the lending authority, the services of the Government servant will be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority.

Under Rule 16(1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority may, if it thinks fit, in the circumstances of any particular case, decide that an inquiry should be held in the manner laid down in subrules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The implication of this rule is that all the formalities beginning with the framing of articles of charge, statement of imputation, etc. will have to be gone through. The procedure to be followed will be the same as prescribed for an inquiry into a case in which a major penalty is proposed to be imposed.

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.

Part XIV of the Constitution relates to ‘Services Under the Union and the States’, wherein, Articles 309, 310 and 311 are relevant to disciplinary proceedings. Article 309 is an enabling provision which gives power to the legislature to enact laws governing the conditions of service of the persons appointed in connection with the affairs of the state. Proviso to this Article provides that pending the enactment of the laws, the President may frame rules for the above purpose. The laws as well as the Rules to be framed for the purpose must be subject to the provisions of the Constitution, CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 as well as several other service rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

Article 310 of the Constitution contains what is known as the Pleasure Doctrine. It provides that the term of appointment of the union Government Servants shall depend upon the pleasure of the President. In fact, the provision applies to all members of defence services, members of Civil Services, members of All India Services, holders of Civil Posts and holders of defence posts. The same Article also provides that the pleasure of the President can be over ridden only by the express provisions of the Constitution and nothing else. Thus, in case there is any express provision relating to the tenure of appointment of a Government Servant, the same will prevail; otherwise, the tenure of appointment will depend upon the pleasure of the President.

Different case studies revealed that, most of the authorities have its confusion in mind about the correct disciplinary authority in respect of any cadre. It is also noticed that, when one official receives charge sheet from any authority the first question raised by him in his appeal/Court case that, improper authority had issued the said charge sheet. In some cases, the claim of the official is found correct. It is required to be clear that, there are two types of penalties prescribed in the Rule-11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 viz. minor penalties and major penalties. Similarly in Rule-13(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it is clear that, there are two categories of disciplinary authorities. One can impose only the minor penalties where the other can impose any types of penalties. The terminology used to differentiate these two types are lower disciplinary authority and actual/higher disciplinary authority. The lower disciplinary authority can impose minor penalties and also can initiate the major penalty proceedings as per provisions under the Rule-13(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

If the lower disciplinary authority initiates any major disciplinary proceedings (after advice/consultation with the CVO/Commission where ever necessary) against any official, then the same authority has to appoint Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges brought against the said official. After receiving the report of the IO, the said authority has to disagree with the findings of the IO, if any, and forward the report of the IO along with disagreement remarks, if any, to the charged official for submission of his/her representation against the said report within the stipulated period.

As per provisions under Rule-15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule-11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are supposed to take ancillary action of accepting/rejecting findings of the Inquiring Authority and to take further action to forward the same to the Charged Officer with or without disagreement note. Also Rule-14(21)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulates that, “Where a Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule-11 (but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule-11) has itself inquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of any charge and that authority, having regard to its own findings or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule-11 should be imposed on the Government servant that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned penalties.”

So, if lower disciplinary authority after examining the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiring Authority found that, any of the minor penalties is justified in the case instead of any major penalty though major penalty proceedings was initiated against the Government servant, the said authority can issue the disciplinary order instead of forwarding the case to the higher disciplinary authority on the plea that the final decision for major penalty proceedings should be taken by the higher disciplinary authority.

Once a decision has been taken, after a preliminary inquiry, that a prima facie case exists and that formal disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against a delinquent Government servant under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority will need to decide whether proceedings should be taken under Rule 14 (i.e., for imposing a major penalty) or under Rule 16 (i.e., for imposing a minor penalty).

Certain types of vigilance cases in which it may be desirable to start proceedings for imposing a major penalty are given below as illustrative guidelines:

Cases in which there is a reasonable ground to believe that a penal offence has been committed by a government servant but the evidence forthcoming is not sufficient for prosecution in a court of law, e.g.,

1. Possession of disproportionate assets;

2. Obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratification;

3. Misappropriation of Government property, money or stores;

4. Obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without consideration or for a consideration.

5. Falsification of Government records;

6. Gross irregularity or negligence in the discharge of official duties with a dishonest motive.

7. Misuse of official position or power for personal gain;

8. Disclosure of secret or confidential information even though it does not fall strictly within the scope of the official Secrets Act;

9. False claims on the Government like T.A claims, reimbursement claims, etc.

In cases in which the institution of proceedings is advised by the Central Vigilance Commission, the Commission will also advise, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, whether proceedings should be initiated for the imposition of a major penalty or a minor penalty.

The term Disciplinary Authorities refers to such authorities who have been entrusted with powers to impose any penalty on the employees. In respect of the organizations falling under the purview of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, the term Disciplinary Authority is defined in Rule 2 (g) of the CCA Rules as the authority competent to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 11. In this Handbook, CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 is henceforth referred to as “the Rules”

Disciplinary authority is defined with reference to the post held by the employee. Various Disciplinary authorities are specified in Rule 12 of the Rules. Thus, there may be more than one disciplinary authority in every organization.

Normally, there are two categories of Disciplinary Authorities viz. those who can impose all penalties on the employees and the authorities who can impose only minor penalties.

Although it is not explicitly stated anywhere, main responsibility of the Disciplinary Authority is to ensure discipline in the organization. Towards this, the disciplinary authorities are required to identify acts of indiscipline and take appropriate remedial action such as counseling, cautioning, admonition, imposition of penalties, criminal prosecution, etc.

Appointing Authorities are empowered to impose major penalties. It may be recalled that Article 311 clause (1) provides that no one can be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the Authority which appointed him. In fact, under most of the situations, the powers for imposing major penalties are generally entrusted to the Appointing Authorities. Thus, Appointing Authorities happen to be disciplinary authorities. However, there may be other authorities who may be empowered only to impose minor penalties. Such authorities are often referred to as lower disciplinary authorities for the sake of convenience.

CCA Rule 2(a) lays down the procedure for determining the Appointing Authority in respect of a person by considering four authorities. Besides, it must also be borne in mind that Appointing Authority goes by factum and not by rule. i.e. where an employee has been actually appointed by an authority higher than one empowered to make such appointment as per the rules, the former shall be taken as the Appointing Authority in respect of such employee.

The term Disciplinary Authority has been used to signify any authority who has been empowered to impose penalty. Thereby the term includes appointing authorities also.

Disciplinary authorities are expected to act like a Hot Stove, which has the following characteristics:

Advance warning - One may feel the radiated heat while approaching the Hot stove. Similarly, the Disciplinary Authority should also keep the employees informed of the expected behavior and the consequences of deviant behavior.

Consistency - Hot stove always, without exception, burns those who touch it. Similarly, the disciplinary authority should also be consistent in approach. Taking a casual and lenient view during one point of time and having rigid and strict spell later is not fair for a Disciplinary Authority.

Impersonal - Hot stove treats all alike. It does not show any favouritism or spare anybody. Similarly, the disciplinary authority should treat all employees alike without any discrimination. [You may feel that past good conduct of the delinquent employee is taken into account while deciding the quantum of penalty. This is not in contravention of the rule of impersonal approach. Even past conduct has to be taken into account in respect of all the employees, without discrimination.]

Immediate action - Just as the hot stove burns the fingers of those who touch it without any time lag, the disciplinary authority is also expected to impose penalty without delay. This will make the delinquent employee link the misconduct to the penalty; besides it also sends a message that misconduct will be appropriately dealt with.

[The rule is attributed to Douglas McGregor who is better known for his ‘X’ and ‘Y’ theories of Management]

When you try to find out who is your disciplinary authority, firstly, it must be remembered that the Disciplinary authority is determined with reference to the employee proceeded against. Schedule to the Rules 1965 lay down the details of the disciplinary authorities in respect of various grade of employees in different services in the Government. The President, the Appointing Authority, the Authority specified in the Schedule ot the Rules (to the extent specified therein) or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by any general or special order of the President may impose any of the Penalties specified in Rule 11.

Appointing Authority as mentioned in the Schedule must be understood with reference to rule2 (a) of the Rules. The question as to who is the appropriate disciplinary authority must be raised and answered not only while issuing charge sheet but also at the time of imposing penalty because there might have been some change in the situation due to delegation of powers, etc. in the organization.

Disciplinary authority is required to discharge the following functions:

1. Examination of the complaints received against the employees

2. Deciding as to who is to be appointed as the investigating authority.

3. Taking a view as to whether there is any need to keep the delinquent employee under suspension.

4. Taking a view on the preliminary investigation report and deciding about the future course of action thereon, such as warning, training, counselling, initiation of major or minor penalty proceeding, prosecution, discharge simpliciter, etc.

5. Consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) where necessary.

6. Deciding whether there is any need to issue of charge sheet or penalty may be imposed dispensing with inquiry under the appropriate provision