The Government has accepted the recommendations made by the Group of Ministers (GoM) on Corruption in its First Report, aimed at fast-tracking of cases against public servants accused of corruption. The report was accepted on September 6, 2011.
The Government had, on 6th January. 2011. constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to consider measures that can be taken by the Government to tackle corruption, under the chairmanship of Union Finance Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee. The terms of reference of the GoM were as under:-
(i) To consider all measures, including legislative and administrative, to tackle corruption and improve transparency;
(ii) In particular, the GoM may consider and advise on the following:-
(a) State funding of elections:
(b) Fast tracking of all cases of public servants accused of corruption:
(c) Ensuring full transparency in public procurement and contracts. including enunciation of public procurement standards and a public procurement policy:
(d) Relinquishing discretionary powers enjoyed by Ministers at the Centre:
(e) Introduction of an open and competitive system of exploiting natural resources:
(f) Amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution to provide for summary proceedings in cases of grave misdemeanor or blatant corruption by public servants: and
(g) Consideration of relevance/need for section 6(A) of the Delhi Special Establishment Act, 1946.
The GOM has so far held five meetings on 21.1.2011, 14.2.2011, 16.3.2011, 16.06.201 1 and 06.09.2011. Based on the deliberations in its first three meetings, the Group of Ministers had submitted its First Report to the Government in April. 201 1. After due consideration by DoPT, Cabinet Secretariat and PMO, the Government has, on Tuesday, accepted the recommendations made by the GoM in its First Report with minor changes.
These decisions, which cover items (ii)(b), (ii)(f) and (ii)(g) of the term of reference (ToR) of the GOM, are as follows:-
(a) Dispensing with the Second Stage Advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. (However, in those cases where consultation with UPSC is not required under the extant rules, the second stage consultation with CVC should continue.)
(b) Departments/ Ministries should primarily use serving officers as Inquiry Officers (IDs) & Presenting Officers (POs) and in important cases, they may request CVC to appoint their Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (GDIs) as lOs. CVC to maintain a panel of lOs/POs from amongst retired Government officers after due process of screening and empanelment. These officers could be engaged on advice of the CVC.
(c) In all cases where the Investigating Agency has requested sanction for prosecution, it will be mandatory for the competent authority to take a decision within a period of 3 months from receipt of request, and pass a Speaking Order, giving reasons for the decision. In the event of refusal of sanction to prosecute, the competent authority will have to submit its order including reasons for refusal, to the next higher authority for information within 7 days. Wherever the Minister-in-charge of the Department is the competent authority and he decides to deny the permission, it would be incumbent on the Minister to submit, within 7 days of passing such order denying the permission, to the Prime Minister for information. Further, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of each Department/Ministry to monitor all cases where a request has been made for permission to prosecute. Secretaries should submit a certificate every month to the Cabinet Secretary to the effect that no case is pending for more than 3 months and, in case any such request is pending, the reasons for such pendency and the level where it is pending may also be explained.
(d) Expediting the setting up of Special CBI Courts already sanctioned by Central Government, by actively pursuing the matter with the State Governments;
(e) Setting up of a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and having as its Members, a retired CVC, retired Director of CBI and another person of impeccable reputation who could be drawn from the Civil Society, to look into old CBI cases which are pending for more than 10 years, particularly those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and suggest ways for their speedy disposal, including withdrawal, if need be.
(f) Strengthening of vigilance administration of Central Ministries/Departments and, in particular, the strengthening of vigilance wing of the Department of Personnel and Training, with requisite manpower to ensure effective monitoring of vigilance matters.
(g)Continuation of minor penalty proceedings against public servants even after retirement with provision for a ceiling of 10% cut in pension for a period not exceeding five years. Such cut in pension in minor penalty proceedings would, however, be non-mandatory.
(h)Change in the present penalty of 'compulsory retirement' (with full pension) to 'compulsory retirement with a cut in pension upto 20%".
(a) Dispensing with the Second Stage Advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. (However, in those cases where consultation with UPSC is not required under the extant rules, the second stage consultation with CVC should continue.)
(b) Departments/ Ministries should primarily use serving officers as Inquiry Officers (IDs) & Presenting Officers (POs) and in important cases, they may request CVC to appoint their Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (GDIs) as lOs. CVC to maintain a panel of lOs/POs from amongst retired Government officers after due process of screening and empanelment. These officers could be engaged on advice of the CVC.
(c) In all cases where the Investigating Agency has requested sanction for prosecution, it will be mandatory for the competent authority to take a decision within a period of 3 months from receipt of request, and pass a Speaking Order, giving reasons for the decision. In the event of refusal of sanction to prosecute, the competent authority will have to submit its order including reasons for refusal, to the next higher authority for information within 7 days. Wherever the Minister-in-charge of the Department is the competent authority and he decides to deny the permission, it would be incumbent on the Minister to submit, within 7 days of passing such order denying the permission, to the Prime Minister for information. Further, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of each Department/Ministry to monitor all cases where a request has been made for permission to prosecute. Secretaries should submit a certificate every month to the Cabinet Secretary to the effect that no case is pending for more than 3 months and, in case any such request is pending, the reasons for such pendency and the level where it is pending may also be explained.
(d) Expediting the setting up of Special CBI Courts already sanctioned by Central Government, by actively pursuing the matter with the State Governments;
(e) Setting up of a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and having as its Members, a retired CVC, retired Director of CBI and another person of impeccable reputation who could be drawn from the Civil Society, to look into old CBI cases which are pending for more than 10 years, particularly those under the Prevention of Corruption Act and suggest ways for their speedy disposal, including withdrawal, if need be.
(f) Strengthening of vigilance administration of Central Ministries/Departments and, in particular, the strengthening of vigilance wing of the Department of Personnel and Training, with requisite manpower to ensure effective monitoring of vigilance matters.
(g)Continuation of minor penalty proceedings against public servants even after retirement with provision for a ceiling of 10% cut in pension for a period not exceeding five years. Such cut in pension in minor penalty proceedings would, however, be non-mandatory.
(h)Change in the present penalty of 'compulsory retirement' (with full pension) to 'compulsory retirement with a cut in pension upto 20%".
No comments:
Post a Comment