DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
PROJECT
__________________________________________________________________________

ROLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO COMBAT

CORRUPTION

Submitted to:
Mr. Shashank Shekhar
Asst. Professor (Law)

Submitted by:
Anshita Mani
Enrollment No.: 130101021
Roll No: 21
B.A.,LL.B.(Hons.)
6th Semester

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

While bearing full responsibility for any mistakes, I wish to thank Mr. Shashank Shekhar for
making a number of helpful comments and constructive criticisms for my project. I would
like to thank her for allowing me to make project on an appropriate topic of my choice and
that has helped me in better understanding of the subject. I also thank the comments and
suggestions of my seniors, which were also of great assistance. However, I am alone
responsible for all the remaining errors and inadequacy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

History of creation of CVC

.5

Jurisdiction of CVC ...7

Corruption

.....9

Complaint..........................................................................................................10

Action against person making false statement...................................................11

Demerits of CVC

......12

Need for amending the act..................................................................................13

Conclusion.......14

Bibliography.....15

INTRODUCTION
Vigilance in context of any organisation would mean keeping a watchful eye on the activities
of officer and officials of the unit to ensure integrity of the personal in their official
transactions. Vigilance, in other words is to ensure clean and prompt administrative towards
achieving efficiency and effectiveness of employees in particular and organisation in general,
as lack of leans to waste, losses and economic decline. Corruption in the administration is a
serious problem affecting Indian polity. Incorruptibility is an essential requirement for public
confidence in the administration of government department. Government in order to
strengthen the existing mechanism created Central Vigilance Commission in February 1964.
The main concern regarding the formation of CVC was to:
(a) Prevention of corruption and maintenance of integrity among public servant and,
(b) Ensuring just and fair exercise of administrative powers vested in various authorities by
statutory rules.

Here, two major matters were meant to be addressed, cases related to corruption and cases
related to maladministration but later were not accepted by the government. The Vigilance
4

Commission has jurisdiction and power in respect of matters to which executive power of the
centre extends.
The Central Vigilance Commission comprises of:
(a) Central Vigilance Commissioner Chairperson
(b) Not more than three vigilance Commissioners Members1

Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner should be made by a Committee
consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from a
panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity.2

HISTORY OF CREATION OF CVC

The Central Vigilance Commission was established by the Government of India in 1964 on
the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Before
finalising its report, the Committee submitted its interim recommendations to the government
in two parts. The first recommended the establishment of the Central Vigilance Commission.
The second part suggested conferring powers on the Commission, similar to those under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, 3 so that it could undertake an
inquiry into transactions where public servants were suspected of having acted improperly or
in a corrupt manner.
The Committee envisaged a wide role for the CVC. It was not satisfied merely with the
existing arrangements intended to investigate and punish corruption and misuse of authority
by individual officers. While this is indispensable, the Committee feels that the Central
Vigilance organisation should be expanded so as to deal with complaints of failure of justice
1 S.2 of the CVC Act, 2013
2 Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 340-343 of 1993, p87

3Powers of a civil court trying a civil suit, like summoning attendance of persons; requisitioning records and
documents; receiving evidence on affidavits; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
documents, etc.

or oppression or abuse of authority suffered by the citizens though it may be difficult to

attribute them to any particular official or officials.4
The Committee therefore recommended that the CVC should be vested with jurisdiction and
power, inter alia, to inquire into and investigate: (a) complaints against acts or omissions,
decisions or recommendation, or administrative procedures or practices on the grounds that
they are: (i) wrong or contrary to law; (ii) unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly
discriminatory; (iii) in accordance with a rule of law or a provision of any enactment or a
practice that is or may be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(iv) based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact.5.
The Government of India did not accept this recommendation. The Resolution with which the
CVC was set up6 did not have this clause in its charter of functions. The reasoning for its
exclusion was explained in these words: The importance and urgency of providing a
machinery for looking into grievances of citizens against the administration and for ensuring
just and fair exercise of administrative power is fully recognised.
However, it is considered that the problem is big enough to require a separate agency or
machinery and that apart from this the Central Vigilance Commission would be overburdened
if this responsibility were to be placed upon it, and the Commission might as a result be less
effective in dealing with the problem of corruption.7
The recommendation made by the Committee in the second part that the CVC should be
given through suitable legislation certain powers to enable it to undertake enquiries remained

4 DO Letter Number 1/4/63-CPC dated 22 February 1963 from Shri K. Santhanam, Chairman,
Committee on Prevention of Corruption to Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, the then Home Minister,
Government of India; Paragraph 3.
5Paragraph 6 of the Scheme of the CVC forwarded by the Chairman to the Union Home Minister
vide his DO Letter dated 22 February 1963
6 Resolution No. 24/7/64- A V D dated 11 February 1964.
7 Statement laid by the Government of India on the tables of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha about the scheme
on 16 December 1963; Paragraph 3.

unimplemented till 2003 when the CVC Act was legislated. Though these powers are now
available with the Commission,8 they are not used by it.
The Resolution of 1964 had two significant provisions. One, it defined the charter of the
CVC. Its main function was to undertake an enquiry or to cause an enquiry or investigation to
be made into any complaint of corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity, or other kinds of
malpractices or misdemeanour on the part of a public servant including members of the All
India Services even if such members are for the time being serving in connection with the
affairs of a state government.
The other was to maintain that though the Commission will be an attached office of the
Ministry of Home Affairs, in the exercise of its powers and functions it will not be
subordinate to any Ministry/Department and will have the same measure of independence and
autonomy as the Union Public Service Commission.

JURISDICTION OF CVC
The commissions jurisdiction is co-terminus with the executive power of the union therefore
it extends to all matter. It can take any inquiry into any transaction in which a public servant
is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper or corrupt purpose; or cause such an
enquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint of corruption, gross negligence,
misconduct, recklessness, lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or misdemeanours
on the part of a public servant. The commission tenders appropriate advice to the concerned
disciplinary authorities in all such matters having a definite or potential vigilance angle and
an element of corruption or criminal misconduct or malafide.
CVC exercise superintendence over CBI in the matters relating to the investigation of the all
offences alleged to have been committed under the prevention of corruption act 1988. 9
8The CVC Act, 2003, Section 11.

9 http://www.cvc.nic.in/sppse.htm
7

CVC renders advice at two stages on vigilance matters:

(a) FIRST STAGE: To consider investigation report and advice about the type of proceedings
(major/minor) to be initiated.
(b) SECOND STAGE: To consider inquiry report and advice about the penalty to be imposed.

VIGILENCE DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE

Chief Vigilance Officer
General Manager (vigilance)
Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer (Investigation)
Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer (Technical)
Sr. Managers/ Managers/ Asst. Managers
However with the increase in the scope of administration in India, a feeling has arisen in the
public mind that vesting of such vast power in the administration has generated possibilities
and opportunities of abuse or misuse of power by administrative functionaries resulting in
maladministration and corruption. The CVC is primarily entrusted with the task of looking
into matters of corruption in administration. It is further clarified that complaints to the
commission are meant to result in punitive action against the erring public servant. Relief as
such in the matter to the complainant is only incidental to the vigilance action. Redressal of
grievances vis-a-vis government organisation or public sector enterprises should not be the
focus of complaint to the commission.

CORRUPTION
Whoever being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or
attempts to obtain gratification. Whatever, other than legal remuneration as a motive or a
reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act or for showing or for bearing to show, in
the exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour to any person with the Central or
State Government or Parliament or Legislature of any state or with any public servant as
such. It is held to be the abuse of public office for private gain.
Corruption is also described as the acquisition of forbidden benefit by officials or employees,
so bringing into question their loyalty to their employers. From 1964 to 1993, for nearly three
decades, the CVC rolled along without making any visible dent on the problem of corruption
in the country. A very important milestone in its history occurred when the Supreme Court
pronounced its judgement in what is popularly known as the Hawala Case.10

10 Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 340-343 of 1993.

9

The gist of allegations made in the writ petitions filed on 4 October 1993 was that:

financial support was given to terrorists by clandestine and illegal means using

tainted funds obtained through hawala transactions;

the CBI and other agencies failed to investigate these properly and prosecute those

who were involved in committing the offences; and

this was done deliberately to protect persons who were influential and powerful.

The Court found that the inertia of the investigating agencies was the common rule whenever
the alleged offender was a powerful person. It was therefore necessary to take permanent
measures to prevent reversion to inertia of the agencies in such matters.
The CVC shall be entrusted with the responsibility of exercising superintendence over the
CBIs functioning.11

COMPLAINT
Information about corruption, malpractice or misconduct on the part of public servants may
come to light from any source, such as administrative authority. Complaints received or
intelligence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and by Police authorities,
inspection report, and stock verification surveys, Audit report on government accounts and on
the accounts of public undertakings. Reports of any irregularities in accounts revealed in the
routine audit of accounts e.g. tampering with records, over-payment, misappropriation of
money or materials.
Complaints received in the central vigilance commission will be registered and initially
examined in the commission. The commission may decide, according to the nature of each
complaint, that
1. It should be sent for enquiry and disposal/report to the administrative ministry/
departmental concerned.
11 The superintendence of the CBI, according to Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, vests in the central government. The Court directed that this superintendence should be exercised
by the CVC.
10

2. It should be sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation for enquiry/investigation.

3. Commission should undertake the enquiry itself.
The government of India has reason to believe that a good many anonymous complaint are
false and malicious and that such complaint are not a reliable source of Information. Inquiries
into such complaint have an adverse effect on the moral of the services. The government of
India have accordingly decided that no action should be taken on anonymous complaint
against government servants.

ACTION AGAINST PERSONS MAKING FALSE

STATEMENT

There is remedial action available against those who send false petition. If complaint made by
a public servant is found to be malicious, vexatious or unfounded, serious action may be
considered against the complaint. A person making a false statement can be prosecuted on a
complaint lodged with a court by the public servant to whom false complaint was made or by
some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
Alternatively, if the complaint is a public servant, it may also be considered whether
departmental action should be taken against him as an alternative or in addition to
prosecution.

11

DEMERITS OF CVC
Commission is an agency of Executive and not of the Legislature. He owes his position to
executive will as it has no statutory basis. It has no investigation mechanism at its disposal; it
depends upon other public agencies for the purpose.
In Sunil Kumar v. State of West Bengal,12
An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into certain charges against the appellant who
was a member of Indian Administrative Services. Report of the enquiry was sent to the
Vigilance Commissioner for his advice. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, i.e. state
government came to the conclusions. The appellant was reduced from higher to lower salary
in the same grade. He challenged the order, and contended that consultation with Vigilance
officer who had no statutory status and Government, did not furnish report of officer.
Court held that Disciplinary Committee committed no irregulatory, and conclusions were not
based on advice tendered by Vigilance officer, but arrived independently.
The preliminary findings of the disciplinary authority happened to coincide with the views of
vigilance commissioner was neither here nor there. If the commissioners report is not to be
taken into account at all by concerned authority or if it does not play any role in influencing
its mind, then consultation with him is an empty formality which serves no purpose,
therefore, institution practically become otiose. PSC had a constitutional status, while
vigilance commissioner has merely an administrative status.
And according to Natural Justice, which requires decision making authority must apply its
own mind, and ought not to be influenced by others.
However present day situation is very unsatisfactory. In order to avoid, options available are:
1. Government shouldnt consult Vigilance Commissioner for drawing conclusion from
record.
2. Vigilance Commissioner should be given a legal status. And provisions must be made in
law for consulting him.
12 AIR 1970 Cal 384.
12

NEED FOR AMENDING THE ACT

President of India as the Chairman and a nominee of the Chief Justice of India a member of
the selection committee - the selection must be by consensus among the members, and
selection by the majority of the members present should be adopted only in exceptional
circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in the committees proceedings. The
proceedings, along with full particulars of persons considered for the preparation of the panel
and the reason based on which the final selection was made, should be published. This would
ensure that the composition of the committee does not give a steam-roller majority to the
government and that the committee functions in a non-partisan and transparent manner.
The vigilance commission has jurisdiction and powers in respect of matters to which the
executive of the centre extends. The following categories of employees come within the
commissions purview: government servants employed in the ministries and departments or
the government of India and union Territories, employees of public sector undertakings,
statutory corporations and post trusts. But as a practical matter, the commission has restricted
itself to cases pertaining only to Gazetted Officers, employees of public undertakings and
nationalised banks etc. drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1000 per month and above. The Central
Vigilance Commissioner is to be appointed by President. The commission is attached to the
Ministry of Home Affairs, but it is not subordinate to any Ministry or Department and has
same measure of Independence and autonomy as the UPSC.

13

CONCLUSION

Vigilance has to be very effective if it has to integrate itself with the stream of management
functions so that suspicion and fears are allayed. And an atmosphere of congenial work is
created. Above statement adequately paves the way for a positive role for vigilance. Vigilance
should not become an irritant in smooth functioning of the organization. Vigilance basically
performs pro-active and reactive roles. Preventive Vigilance is an off-shoot of pro-active
vigilance. Reactive role of the Vigilance consists of punitive vigilance. It is well accepted
principle that as and when a vigilance case is detected the appropriate authority should take
suitable actions for imposing punishment on the concerned delinquent employee but the
authority should take suitable measures which should prevent occurrence of misconduct. It is
not enough to take action when a misconduct is committed. We have to create an environment
which does not leave any scope for an employee to indulge in misconduct. This is the crux of
preventive vigilance and it should be pursued to make an organization free from the Vigilance
cases.

14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Takwani, C.K.: Lectures on Administrative Law

2. Sathe, S.P.: Administrative Law
3. Jain, M.P. and Jain; S.N.: Principles of Administrative Law

15