6489 . Shri S. PAKKIRAPPA
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-
(a) whether there is any provision of inquiry and action in case any complaint, in notarized affidavit against any Government official employee/public servant for taking bribe, involvement in corruption or for harassing any citizen in any form, is received by the Government;
(b) if so, the details thereof;
(c) the manner in which the Government treats a complaint received in affidavit i.e.whether it treats the complaint as normal or serious;
(d) whether any time-limit has been fixed to take action on complaints received on an affidavit; and
(e) if so, the details thereof?
Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office.
(SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY) (a) & (b): Department of Personnel & Training has not issued any instructions regarding handling of complaints received in the form of affidavits, etc. As per the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, every Government servant shall at tall time-
(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming to a Government servant.
Any contravention of these provisions by a Government servant attracts disciplinary action under relevant Rules. Taking of bribe, involvement in corruption or harassing any citizen in any form on the part of a Government servant are indicators of doubtful integrity and such actions are unbecoming on the part of a Government servant. Therefore, such actions are in contravention of the provisions of Conduct Rules for which disciplinary actions can be taken against the government servant if such complaints are received against them in any form.
(c): Complaints received in the Central Government Ministries/Departments whether in affidavit or any other form are treated as receipts and handled as per Manual of Office Procedure. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is mandated under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, to enquire or cause an enquiry into complaints against public servants wherein allegations of corruption are involved. Complaints received in the Commission (including those received under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution) are dealt according to its Complaint Handling Policy. Complaints received in the Commission are scrutinized and wherever specific and verifiable allegations involving vigilance angle/corruption are noticed by the Commission, the complaints are forwarded to the appropriate agency (i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the organization or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct investigation into the matter and report to CVC.
(d) & (e): The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has, vide Circular No. 000/VGL/018 dated 23.05.2000, prescribed a time limit of three months for conducting investigation of complaints forwarded by it and submission of report to the Commission. Complaints received on affidavit, are also handled accordingly.
6522 . Smt. MEENA SINGH
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-
(a) the extent of success achieved so far in dealing with corruption cases since 2010 till date as a result of the functioning of anti-corruption cells;
(b) the number of persons found taking bribe and involved in corruption during the above period; and
(c) the laws likely to be made by the Government to make the country corruption free?
ANSWER
Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office.
(SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY) (a): Each Central Ministry/Department/Public Sector Undertaking (PSU)/Agency, etc. has its own vigilance wing to deal with corruption in their respective domain. No centralized data is maintained in this regard. So far as Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is concerned, during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 (upto 31.03.2012), it has disposed of 1366 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from investigation. The CBI has filed charge-sheets in courts in 1139 cases out of the above. The percentage of prosecution in respect of Prevention of Corruption Act cases during this period is 83.38%.
(b): The data is not maintained centrally. However, so far as CBI is concerned, during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 (till 31.03.2012), it has registered 1451 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Out of these 1451 cases, 464 were trap cases. So far as number of persons involved in these cases is concerned, the data is not maintained centrally.
(c): To strengthen the anti-corruption mechanism, the Central Government has introduced a number of legislations in the Parliament in the recent past. Some of them are-
(i) The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011;
(ii) The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011;
(iii) The Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organizations Bill, 2011;
(iv) The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of the Grievances Bill, 2011;
The Lokpal and Lokyuktas Bill, 2011 and the Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 have since been passed by the Lok Sabha and these Bills are pending in the Rajya Sabha.
6533 . Shri SURESH KODIKUNNIL D.B. CHANDRE GOWDA
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-
(a) whether the Government has framed broad guidelines/specific rules relating to establishment of a body to review corruption cases which are pending in courts for more than a decade;
(b) if so, the details thereof and if not,the reasons therefor;
(c) whether the Supreme Court has refused to provide a panel of names of judges of Supreme Court recently retired;
(d) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; and
(e) the time likely to be taken to prepare the rules and set up the body?
(SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY) (a), (b) & (c): The recommendation of the Group of Ministers (GoM) to set up a Committee to study pending CBI cases, in particular, for more than a decade in various CBI courts and suggest ways for their speedy disposal including withdrawal, if need be, has been accepted by the Central Government. The necessary guidelines for setting up the Committee are yet to be framed by the Government in consultation with CBI.
(d): Does not arise.
(e): No definite time frame can be stipulated at this stage.
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 6542 ANSWERED ON 16.05.2012
6542 . Dr. (Prof.) PRASANNA KUMAR PATASANI
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-
(a) whether the Government has suggested minor penalty for minor irregularities and major penalty for major irregularity committed by the Government servants while in office;
(b) if so, the details of instructions issued in this regard;
(c) whether the Government is aware that such lenient view is likely to encourage corruption among the Government servants; and
(d) if so, the stringent measures proposed to check corruption in the Government offices?
Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office . (SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY)
(a) & (b): Penalties that can be imposed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons are categorized as Minor Penalties and Major Penalties under the relevant Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. It has also been provided in the Rules that in every case in which the charge of possession of assets disproportionate to known-source of income or the charge of acceptance from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act is established, major penalty of removal or dismissal from service shall be imposed.
(c): The rules are not lenient. Under the extant rules/instructions, cases involving moral turpitude and failure to maintain integrity would justify proceedings for imposition of a major penalty including dismissal and removal from service.
(d): To strengthen the anti-corruption mechanism, the Government has introduced a number of legislations in recent past. Some of them are-
(i) The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011;
(ii) The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011;
(iii) The Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organization Bill, 2011; and
(iv) The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011;
The Lokpal and Lokyuktas Bill, 2011 and the Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 have since been passed by the Lok Sabha and these Bills are pending in the Rajya Sabha.
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 6605 ANSWERED ON 16.05.2012
6605 . Smt. RAMA DEVI SANJAY SINH
Will the Minister of PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS be pleased to state:-
(a) the details of guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon`ble Supreme Court regarding compliance of adherence to the time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution by the Government;
(b) the details of violation of the above guidelines by the Ministries/Departments during each of the last three years and the current year, Department-wise; and
(c) the details of officers identified for above violation and the action taken against them during the above period?
Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office.
(SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY) (a): The Supreme Court of India, vide its judgment dated 18th December, 1997 in the case of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India, directed that “time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG) or any Law Officer in the AG’s office”.
The Supreme Court has, in its recent judgment dated 31st January, 2012 in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Another (Civil Appeal No.1193 of 2012), reiterated the said limit. In the same judgment, one of the Judges (Shri Justice A.K. Ganguly) has made an observation that the Parliament may consider introducing a time limit in section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner and also introducing a provision that if sanction is not accorded within the time limit, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution. The above observations made by the Hon’ble judge in his concurring judgment, are in the nature of obiter dicta.
In order to check delays in grant of sanction for prosecution, the Department of Personnel & Training has issued guidelines vide its OM No.399/33/2006-AVD-III dated 6th November, 2006 followed by another OM dated 20th December, 2006, providing for a definite time frame at each stage for handling of requests from CBI for prosecution of public servants.
Recently, the Group of Ministers on tackling corruption, in its first report, inter alia, recommended that:-
(a) In all cases where the Investigating Agency has requested sanction for prosecution and also submitted a draft charge sheet and related documents along with the request, 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 this decision.
(b) In the event that the competent authority refuses permission for sanction to prosecute, it 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.
(c) 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 may also submit a certificate every month to the Cabinet Secretary to the effect that no case is pending for more than 3 months, the reasons for such pendency and the level where it is pending may also be explained. The said recommendation of the GoM has been accepted by Government and instructions have been issued by the Government on 03.05.2012.
(b): During last three years, the CBI has sought sanction for prosecution of Government Servants/Public Servants for offences under various acts including PC Act, 1988 from various Ministries/ Departments and State Governments in 1459 cases, involving 2583 Government Officials. The year-wise details are as follows:-
YearNo. of cases in which sanction sought No. of requests made in these cases2009531876201049896620113766472012 (upto 31.3.2012) 54 94Total14592583
The CBI has informed that there are 82 requests in 39 cases pending for sanction for prosecution over 3 months as on 31.03.2012 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in various Ministries, Departments and State Governments. The details of such pending cases are given in Annexure-A and the details of pending requests in these cases are given in Annexure-B.
(c): Even though a time limit of three months has been prescribed for deciding cases of sanction for prosecution, it is sometimes not possible for the concerned Ministries/ Departments to adhere to this time limit. The delay is often caused due to detailed analysis of the available evidence, consultation with CVC, State Governments and other agencies, and sometimes non-availability of relevant documentary evidence.
Data of officers found responsible for deliberate delay in processing of cases of sanction for prosecution and action taken against them is not centrally maintained.
Annexure ‘A’ Ministrywise PC-Act Cases Over 3 months Pending for Prosecution Sanction as on Saturday, March, 31, 2012.
MinistryCases between 3 to 6 MonthsCases between 6 Months to 1 yearCases more than 1 yearTotal CasesCABINET SECRETARIAT100 1MINISTRY OF AGRO & RURAL INDUSTRIES1001MINISTRY OF COAL & MINES3003MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION0101MINISTRY OF DEFENCE0101MINISTRY OF FINCANE (DEPTT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES)3418MINISTRY OF FINANCE (CUSTOM & CENTRAL EXCISE)2136MINISTRY OF FINANCE (INCOME TAX)1225MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS1012MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GR. & PENSIONS1001MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS1304MINISTRY OF SHIPPING0011UNION TERRITORIES 1001GOVT. OF ASSAM0022GOVT. OF DELHI0011GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN0033TOTAL15121441 However, a total of only 39 cases are Pending for Prosecution Sanction, as 2 cases are common to more than one Ministry/State Govt. , etc.
Annexure ‘B’ Ministrywise PC-Act Requests Over 3 months Pending for Prosecution Sanction as on Saturday, March, 31, 2012.
Ministry Requests between 3 to 6 Months Requests between 6 Months to 1 year Requests more than 1 year Total Requests CABINET SECRETARIAT 1 0 0 1 MINISTRY OF AGRO & RURAL INDUSTRIES 3 0 0 3 MINISTRY OF COAL & MINES 8 0 0 8 MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION 0 1 0 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 0 1 0 1 MINISTRY OF FINCANE (DEPTT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES) 4 4 1 9 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (CUSTOM & CENTRAL EXCISE) 3 12 7 22 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (INCOME TAX) 1 3 2 6 MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 2 0 1 3 MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GR. & PENSIONS 1 0 0 1 MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS 1 3 0 4 MINISTRY OF SHIPPING 0 0 1 1 UNION TERRITORIES 1 0 0 1 GOVT. OF ASSAM 0 0 12 12 GOVT. OF DELHI 0 0 1 1 GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN 0 0 8 8 TOTAL 25 24 33 82 In the 39 cases pending with Central/State Government, Departments/Authorities, 82 separate requests have been made for Prosecution Sanction as some of the cases involve more than one accused.
COMMENTS