Thiruvananthapuram: Did govt departments keep corruption cases involving gazetted officers away from the vigilance tribunal despite a statutory requirement to refer them? Vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (VACB) is now probing the question across the state after Lok Ayukta found that govt does not maintain consolidated information on cases that should have been referred to the tribunal but were instead dealt with departmentally.On Aug 4, Lok Ayukta entrusted the VACB director with a comprehensive investigation covering all administrative departments governed by Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960. The probe is to identify cases in which Rule 4 (making it mandatory for departments to refer all corruption charges against gazetted officers to the tribunal) was not followed, find out why cases were not referred or were referred late, and determine whether responsibility can be fixed for persistent or deliberate non-compliance.The letter from the vigilance director in this regard, on Aug 13, accessed by TOI, directed all department heads to submit a detailed, point-wise report by Sept 11, without fail. VACB has also asked departments to explain the reasons for any “non-referral or delayed referral” and whether govt concurrence was obtained wherever required. It has been asked to ascertain whether govt orders and circulars directing compliance with Rule 4 were effectively implemented and whether any “administrative practice, procedural deficiency or misunderstanding” contributed to non-compliance.Most significantly, the departments have been asked whether responsibility can be identified for “persistent or deliberate non-compliance” with the statutory mandate.“The vigilance tribunal is a very effective tool in tackling corruption in govt. The standard of proof in tribunal inquiry is lower compared to the requirement of proving a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. This can make the process more effective and help prevent corruption cases from dragging on for years. It also appears that many department heads are not even aware of their powers to refer cases to the tribunal,” DGP and Vigilance Director Manoj Abraham told TOI.Lok Ayukta’s order records that the proviso to Rule 4 makes it mandatory to refer to Vigilance Tribunal all cases relating to gazetted officers involving corruption in the discharge of their official duties. Lok Ayukta also held that the statutory mandate under Rule 4 “continues to operate with full force and effect”.The wider investigation followed govt’s submission before Lok Ayukta that it did not maintain consolidated information on cases which ought to have been referred to the vigilance Tribunal but were dealt with departmentally. Lok Ayukta said an investigation was therefore necessary to ascertain the extent of implementation of Rule 4 across all administrative departments and to identify instances of non-compliance or delay.Govt’s position before Lok Ayukta was that the rules do require disciplinary inquiries relating to allegations of corruption against gazetted officers to be conducted through the vigilance tribunal. It also pointed out that successive orders and circulars were issued to ensure compliance with Rule 4.The development comes months after Kerala High Court also examined the under-utilisation of the vigilance tribunal system. In an April 7 judgement, the court noted that the vigilance tribunals were disposing of only about 4-5 cases a year and that govt departments were not properly utilising their services. The court directed the state govt to conduct a performance audit of the functioning of the vigilance tribunals.
