Our Bureau

New Delhi , Aug. 18

THE Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has expressed concern over the lack of "sanctity" to its vigilance clearance on board-level appointment in public sector undertakings (PSUs), diluting its importance as an apex anti-corruption body and independent authority.

In its 2003 annual report, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, the Commission said that it has been authorised to accord vigilance clearance for board-level appointment in PSUs and in 2003, it issued 414 vigilance clearances in respect of board level appointees.

But the Commission is "constrained to observe that the vigilance clearance granted by it has no sanctity", it said, adding that "after receipt of vigilance clearance, at times the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) asks for reports on complaints closed long ago or are created at the time of consideration of the name of the officer for the appointment by vested interest".

The Commission said, still worse, at times "the personnel to whom the Commission denies vigilance clearance are allowed to continue at important posts or are appointed despite denial of vigilance clearance from the Commission". In this regard, the CVC report cites two such cases found by it in 2003.

In the first case, the CBI probed various aspects of "wet lease agreement" of Air India with Caribjet Incorporated and registered a preliminary inquiry on March 30, 2000. They were to investigate the role of various officials, including Deputy Managing Director of Air India. Based on this preliminary inquiry, the CBI registered a case against him and others in February 2003. Thus, knowing fully well that a preliminary inquiry had been registered at its instance by the CBI against him and others in March 2000, the Ministry of Civil Aviation should have ascertained the present position of the investigation from the CBI before extending his services beyond January 31, 2003.

"Seeking the ACC approval subject to vigilance clearance is totally against the spirit and purpose of seeking vigilance clearance against senior officials before their appointments as heads of public sector undertakings" it said, adding that "the Commission has taken a serious role of this action on the part of the Ministry of Civil Aviation" and conveyed its displeasure.

In the second case, the CVC report said the Department of Commerce had referred a case of extension of tenure of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of MMTC Ltd to the Commission for vigilance clearance.

The particulars furnished by the Department contained certain adverse remarks against the individual concerned and was under investigation at the relevant time. The Commission also observed that the officer while working as a Director in that organisation was involved in various irregularities in procurement of materials on behalf of the PSU.

Even as the CVC had advised the Department of Commerce to refer the matter to the CBI, the Commerce Department did not take any action on the Commission's advice; "on the contrary, the Department extended the tenure of the CMD overlooking the fact that the Commission had not given vigilance clearance. Thus, the action of the Department of Commerce was against the Commission's advice," the CVC said.Referring to systems improvements, it said the tendency of PSUs to give expensive gifts to officials in their controlling Ministries/Departments was not desirable and created infructuous expenditure. It, therefore, issued an order directing PSUs not to send gifts to government officials.

The CVC said non-acceptance of its advice or non-consultation with the Commission vitiates the vigilance process and weakens the impartiality of the vigilance administration. Pointing out that a plethora of cases of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) remain pending for action on the Commission's advice, it said that in 1997 it advised the Revenue Department to look into the involvement of a Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax in a case for having shown special favour to an assessee. No reply was received despite reminders and the Department informed the CVC in February 2003 that the suspect officer had been persuaded to seek retirement under Rule 56(K) as the procedure under Rule 56 (J) was lengthier and complex.

"It is thus seen that the department has summarily tried to dispose the issue to cover up the delay of over years," the CVC said.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line