send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
One of the terms of reference of the Administrative Reforms Commission pertains to ethics in governance, specifically the following aspects:-
(a) Identify procedures, rules and regulations and factors which lead to corruption
(b) suggest a framework for their periodical review in consultation with thestakeholders.
B. Relationship between Political Executive and Permanent Civil Service:
C. Code of Conduct for different organs of Government :
A system for partial state funding should be introduced in order to reduce the scope of illegitimate and unnecessary funding of expenditure for elections.
The issue of disqualification of members on grounds of defection should be decided by the President/Governor on the advice of the Election Commission.
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 needs to be amended to disqualify all persons facing charges related to grave and heinous offences and corruption, with the modification suggested by the Election Commission.
The Constitution should be amended to ensure that if one or more parties in a coalition with a common programme mandated by the electorate either explicitly before the elections or implicitly while forming the government, realign midstream with one or more parties outside the coalition, then Members of that party or parties shall have to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.
A collegium headed by the Prime Minister with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Law Minister and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha as members; should make recommendations for the consideration of the President for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners.
Special Election Tribunals should be constituted at the regional level under Article 323B of the Constitution to ensure speedy disposal of election petitions and disputes within a stipulated period of six months. Each Tribunal should comprise a High Court Judge and a senior civil servant with at least 5 years of experience in the conduct of elections (not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to Government of India/Principal secretary of a State Government). Its mandate should be to ensure that all election petitions are decided within a period of six months as provided by law. The Tribunals should normally be set up for a term of one year only, extendable for a period of 6 months in exceptional circumstances.
Appropriate legislation may be enacted under Article 102(e) of the Constitution spelling out the conditions for disqualification of Membership of Parliament in an exhaustive manner. Similarly, the States may also legislate under Article 198(e).
In addition to the existing Code of Conduct for Ministers, there shouldbe a Code of Ethics to provide guidance on how Ministers should upholdthe highest standards of constitutional and ethical conduct in theperformance of their duties.
Dedicated units should be set up in the offices of the Prime Minister andthe Chief Ministers to monitor the observance of the Code of Ethics andthe Code of Conduct. The unit should also be empowered to receive publiccomplaints regarding violation of the Code of Conduct.
The Prime Minister or the Chief Minister should be duty bound to ensurethe observance of the Code of Ethics and the Code of Conduct by Ministers.This would be applicable even in the case of coalition governments wherethe Ministers may belong to different parties.
An annual report with regard to the observance of these Codes should besubmitted to the appropriate legislature. This report should includespecific cases of violations, if any, and the action taken thereon.
The Code of Ethics should inter alia include broad principles of theMinister-civil servant relationship and the Code of Conduct shouldstipulate the details as illustrated in para 2.4.3.
The Code of Ethics, the Code of Conduct and the annual report shouldbe put in the public domain.
An Office of ‘Ethics Commissioner’ may be constituted by each House ofParliament. This Office, functioning under the Speaker/Chairman, wouldassist the Committee on Ethics in the discharge of its functions, and adviseMembers, when required, and maintain necessary records.
In respect of states, the Commission recommends the following:
(i) All State legislatures may adopt a Code of Ethics and a Code ofConduct for their Members.
(ii) Ethics Committees may be constituted with well defined proceduresfor sanctions in case of transgressions, to ensure the ethical conductof legislators.
(iii) ‘Registers of Members’ Interests’ may be maintained with thedeclaration of interests by Members of the State legislatures.
(iv) Annual Reports providing details including transgressions may beplaced on the Table of the respective Houses.
(v) An Office of ‘Ethics Commissioner’ may be constituted by eachHouse of the State legislatures. This Office would function underthe Speaker/Chairman, on the same basis as suggested forParliament.
a. The Law should be amended to define office of profit based on thefollowing principles:
(i) All offices in purely advisory bodies where the experience, insightsand expertise of a legislator would be inputs in governmental policy,shall not be treated as offices of profit, irrespective of theremuneration and perks associated with such an office.
(ii) All offices involving executive decision making and control of publicfunds, including positions on the governing boards of publicundertakings and statutory and non-statutory authorities directlydeciding policy or managing institutions or authorizing or approvingexpenditure shall be treated as offices of profit, and no legislatorshall hold such offices.
(iii) If a serving Minister, by virtue of office, is a member or head ofcertain organizations like the Planning Commission, where closecoordination and integration between the Council of Ministers andthe organization or authority or committee is vital for the day-todayfunctioning of government, it shall not be treated as office ofprofit.(The use of discretionary funds at the disposal of legislators, thepower to determine specific projects and schemes, or select thebeneficiaries or authorize expenditure shall constitute discharge ofexecutive functions and will invite disqualification under Articles102 and 191, irrespective of whether or not a new office is notifiedand held.)
b. Schemes such as MPLADS and MLALADS should be abolished.
c. Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislatures should be declared as ‘Public Authorities’ under the Right to Information Act, except when they are discharging legislative functions.
‘Public Service Values’ towards which all public servants should aspire,should be defined and made applicable to all tiers of Government andparastatal organizations. Any transgression of these values should betreated as misconduct, inviting punishment.
Conflict of interests should be comprehensively covered in the code ofethics and in the code of conduct for officers. Also, serving officials shouldnot be nominated on the Boards of Public undertakings. This will,however, not apply to non-profit public institutions and advisory bodies.
A comprehensive and enforceable code of conduct should be prescribed for all professions with statutory backing.
A National Judicial Council should be constituted, in line with universally accepted principles where the appointment of members of the judiciary should be by a collegium having representation of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The Council should have the following composition:
In matters relating to the appointment and oversight of High Court Judges,the Council will also include the following members:
b. The National Judicial Council should be authorized to lay down the codeof conduct for judges, including the subordinate judiciary.
c. The National Judicial Council should be entrusted with the task ofrecommending appointments of Supreme Court and High Court Judges.
It should also be entrusted the task of oversight of the judges, and shouldbe empowered to enquire into alleged misconduct and impose minorpenalties. It can also recommend removal of a judge if so warranted.
d. Based on the recommendations of the NJC, the President should havethe powers to remove a Supreme Court or High Court Judge.
e. Article 124 of the Constitution may be amended to provide for the NationalJudicial Council. A similar change will have to be made to Article 217.Also, since the Council is to have the authority to oversee and disciplinejudges, further changes will need to be made to Article 217 (Clause 4).
f. A Judge of the Supreme Court should be designated as the Judicial ValuesCommissioner. He/she should be assigned the task of enforcing the codeof conduct. Similar arrangement should also be made in the High Court.
a. The following should be classified as offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
• Gross perversion of the Constitution and democratic institutions amounting to willful violation of oath of office.
• Abuse of authority unduly favoring or harming someone.
• Obstruction of justice.
• Squandering public money.
a. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act needs to be amended to provide for a special offence of ‘collusive bribery’. An Offence could be classified as ‘collusive bribery’ if the outcome or intended outcome of the transaction leads to a loss to the state, public or public interest;
b. In all such cases if it is established that the interest of the state or public has suffered because of an act of a public servant, then the court shall presume that the public servant and the beneficiary of the decision committed an offence of ‘collusive bribery’;
c. The punishment for all such cases of collusive bribery should be double that of other cases of bribery. The law may be suitably amended in this regard.
a. Prior sanction should not be necessary for prosecuting a public servant who has been trapped red-handed or in cases of possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income.
b. The Prevention of Corruption Act should be amended to ensure that sanctioning authorities are not summoned and instead the documents can be obtained and produced before the courts by the appropriate authority.
c. The Presiding Officer of a House of Legislature should be designated as the sanctioning authority for MPs and MLAs respectively.
d. The requirement of prior sanction for prosecution now applicable to serving public servants should also apply to retired public servants for acts performed while in service.
e. In all cases where the Government of India is empowered to grant sanction for prosecution, this power should be delegated to an Empowered Committee comprising the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Departmental Secretary to Government. In case of a difference of opinion between the two, the matter could be resolved by placing it before the full Central Vigilance Commission. In case, sanction is required against a Secretary to Government, then the Empowered Committee would comprise of Cabinet Secretary and the Central Vigilance Commissioner. Similar arrangements may also be made at the State level. In all cases the order granting sanction for prosecution or otherwise shall be issued within two months. In case of refusal, the reasons for refusal should be placed before the respective legislature annually.
a. In addition to the penalty in criminal cases the law should provide that public servants who cause loss to the state or citizens by their corrupt acts should be made liable to make good the loss caused and, in addition, be liable for damages. This could be done by inserting a chapter in the Prevention of Corruption Act.
a. A legal provision needs to be introduced fixing a time limit for various stages of trial. This could be done by amendments to the CrPC.
b. Steps have to be taken to ensure that judges declared as Special Judges under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act give primary attention to disposal of cases under the Act. Only if there is inadequate work under the Act, should the Special Judges be entrusted with other responsibilities.
c. It has to be ensured that the proceedings of courts trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are held on a day-to-day basis, and no deviation is permitted.
d. The Supreme Court and the High Courts may lay down guidelines to preclude unwarranted adjournments and avoidable delays.
a. The Prevention of Corruption Act should be suitably amended to include in its purview private sector providers of public utility services.
b. Non-Governmental agencies, which receive substantial funding, should be covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Norms should be laid down that any institution or body that has received more than 50% of its annual operating costs, or a sum equal to or greater than Rs 1 crore during any of the preceding 3 years should be deemed to have obtained‘substantial funding’ for that period and purpose of such funding.
a. The Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill as suggested by the Law Commission should be enacted without further delay.
a. Steps should be taken for immediate implementation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988.
• The legislation should cover corporate whistle-blowers unearthingfraud or serious damage to public interest by willful acts of omissionor commission.
• Acts of harassment or victimization of or retaliation against, awhistleblower should be criminal offences with substantial penaltyand sentence.
a. A new law on ‘Serious Economic Offences’ should be enacted.
b. A Serious Economic Offence may be defined as :
(i) One which involves a sum exceeding Rs 10 crores; or
(ii) is likely to give rise to widespread public concern; or
(iii) its investigation and prosecution are likely to require highly specialized knowledge of the financial market or of the behavior of banks or other financial institutions; or
(iv) involves significant international dimensions; or
(v) in the investigation of which there is requirement of legal, financial,investment and investigative skills to be brought together; or
(vi) which appear to be complex to the Union Government, regulators,banks, or any financial institution.
c. A Serious Frauds Office (SFO) should be set up (under the new law), toinvestigate and prosecute such offences. It should be attached to theCabinet Secretariat. This office shall have powers to investigate andprosecute all such cases in Special Courts constituted for this purpose.The SFO should be staffed by experts from diverse disciplines such asthe financial sector, capital and futures market, commodity markets,accountancy, direct and indirect taxation, forensic audit, investigation,criminal and company law and information technology. The SFO shouldhave all powers of investigation as stated in the recommendation of theMitra Committee. The existing SFIO should be subsumed in this.
d. A Serious Frauds Monitoring Committee should be constituted to overseethe investigation and prosecution of such offences. This Committee, tobe headed by the Cabinet Secretary, should have the Chief VigilanceCommissioner, Home Secretary, Finance Secretary, Secretary Banking/Financial Sector, a Deputy Governor, RBI, Secretary, Department ofCompany Affairs, Law Secretary, Chairman SEBI etc as members.
e. In case of involvement of any public functionary in a serious fraud, theSFO shall send a report to the Rashtriya Lokayukta and shall follow thedirections given by the Rashtriya Lokayukta (see para 4.3.15).
f. In all cases of serious frauds the Court shall presume the existenceof menrea of the accused, and the burden of proof regarding itsnon-existence, shall lie on the accused.
Police Establishment Act, 1946
a. Permission to take up investigations under the present statutoryarrangement should be given by the Central Vigilance Commissioner inconsultation with the concerned Secretary. In case of investigation againsta Secretary to Government, the permission should be given by a Committeecomprising the Cabinet Secretary and the Central Vigilance Commissioner.This would require an amendment to the Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act. In the interim the powers of the Union Governmentmay be delegated to the Central Vigilance Commissioner, to be exercisedin the manner stated above. A time limit of 30 days may be prescribed forprocessing this permission.
25. Immunity Enjoyed by Legislators
a. The Commission, while endorsing the suggestion of the NationalCommission to Review the Working of the Constitution, recommendsthat suitable amendments be effected to Article 105(2) of the Constitutionto provide that the immunity enjoyed by Members of Parliament doesnot cover corrupt acts committed by them in connection with their dutiesin the House or otherwise.b. The Commission also recommends that similar amendments may be madein Article 194(2) of the Constitution in respect of members of the statelegislatures.
a. Article 311 of the Constitution should be repealed.
b. Simultaneously Article 310 of the Constitution should also be repealed.
c. Suitable legislation to provide for all necessary terms and conditions ofservices should be provided under Article 309, to protect the bona fideaction of public servants taken in public interest; this should be madeapplicable to the States.
d. Necessary protection to public servants against arbitrary action shouldbe provided through such legislation under Article 309.
a. The Constitution should be amended to provide for a national ombudsmanto be called the Rashtriya Lokayukta. The role and jurisdiction of theRashtriya Lokayukta should be defined in the Constitution while thecomposition, mode of appointment and other details can be decided byParliament through legislation.
b. The jurisdiction of Rashtriya Lokayukta should extend to all Ministers ofthe Union (except the Prime Minister), all state Chief Ministers, all personsholding public office equivalent in rank to a Union Minister, and Membersof Parliament. In case the enquiry against a public functionary establishesthe involvement of any other public official along with the public functionary, the Rashtriya Lokayukta would have the power to enquireagainst such public servant(s) also.
c. The Prime Minister should be kept out of the jurisdiction of the RashtriyaLokayukta for the reasons stated in paras 4.3.7 to 4.3.11.
d. The Rashtriya Lokayukta should consist of a serving or retired Judge ofthe Supreme Court as the Chairperson, an eminent jurist as Member andthe Central Vigilance Commissioner as the ex-officio Member.
e. The Chairperson of the Rashtriya Lokayukta should be selected from apanel of sitting Judges of the Supreme Court who have more than threeyears of service, by a Committee consisting of the Vice President of India,the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of theLok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. In case it is not possible toappoint a sitting Judge, the Committee may appoint a retired SupremeCourt Judge. The same Committee may select the Member (i.e. an eminentjurist) of the Rashtriya Lokayukta. The Chairperson and Member of theRashtriya Lokayukta should be appointed for only one term of three yearsand they should not hold any public office under government thereafter,the only exception being that they can become the Chief Justice of India,if their services are so required.
f. The Rashtriya Lokayukta should also be entrusted with the task ofundertaking a national campaign for raising the standards of ethics inpublic life.
a. The Constitution should be amended to incorporate a provision makingit obligatory on the part of State Governments to establish the institutionof Lokayukta and stipulate the general principles about its structure, powerand functions.
b. The Lokayukta should be a multi-member body consisting of a judicialMember in the Chair, an eminent jurist or eminent administrator withimpeccable credentials as Member and the head of the State VigilanceCommission {as referred in para 4.4.9(e) below} as ex-officio Member.The Chairperson of the Lokayukta should be selected from a panel ofretired Supreme Court Judges or retired Chief Justices of High Court,by a Committee consisting of the Chief Minister, Chief Justice of theHigh Court and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly.The same Committee should select the second member fromamong eminent jurists/administrators. There is no need to have an Up-Lokayukta.
c. The jurisdiction of the Lokayukta would extend to only cases involvingcorruption. They should not look into general public grievances.
d. The Lokayukta should deal with cases of corruption against Ministersand MLAs.
e. Each State should constitute a State Vigilance Commission to look intocases of corruption against State Government officials. The Commissionshould have three Members and have functions similar to that of theCentral Vigilance Commission.
f. The Anti Corruption Bureaus should be brought under the control ofthe State Vigilance Commission.
g. The Chairperson and Members of the Lokayukta should be appointedstrictly for one term only and they should not hold any public officeunder government thereafter.
h. The Lokayukta should have its own machinery for investigation. Initially,it may take officers on deputation from the State Government, but overa period of five years, it should take steps to recruit its own cadre, andtrain them properly.
i. All cases of corruption should be referred to Rashtriya Lokayukta orLokayukta and these should not be referred to any Commission ofInquiry.
a. A local bodies Ombudsman should be constituted for a group of districtsto investigate cases against the functionaries of the local bodies. TheState Panchayat Raj Acts and the Urban Local Bodies Act should beamended to include this provision.
b. The local bodies Ombudsman should be empowered to investigatecases of corruption or maladministration by the functionaries of thelocal self governments, and submit reports to the competent authoritiesfor taking action. The competent authorities should normally takeaction as recommended. In case they do not agree with therecommendations, they should give their reasons in writing and thereasons should be made public.
a. The State Vigilance Commissions/Lokayuktas may be empowered tosupervise the prosecution of corruption related cases.
b. The investigative agencies should acquire multi-disciplinary skills andshould be thoroughly conversant with the working of various offices/departments. They should draw officials from different wings ofgovernment.
c. Modern techniques of investigation should also be deployed likeelectronic surveilance, video and audio recording of surpriseinspections, traps, searches and seizures.
d. A reasonable time limit for investigation of different types of casesshould be fixed for the investigative agencies.
e. There should be sustained step-up in the number of cases detectedand investigated. The priorities need to be reoriented by focussing on‘big’ cases of corruption.
f. The prosecution of corruption cases should be conducted by a panelof lawyers prepared by the Attorney General or the Advocate Generalin consultation with Rashtriya Lokayukta or Lokayukta as the casemay be.
g. The anti-corruption agencies should conduct systematic surveys ofdepartments with particular reference to highly corruption prone onesin order to gather intelligence and to target officers of questionableintegrity.
h. The economic offences unit of states need to be strengthened to effectivelyinvestigate cases and there should be better coordination amongst existingagencies.
a. Citizens’ Charters should be made effective by stipulating the service levelsand also the remedy if these service levels are not met.
b. Citizens may be involved in the assessment and maintenance of ethics inimportant government institutions and offices.
c. Reward schemes should be introduced to incentivise citizen’s initiatives.
d. School awareness programmes should be introduced, highlighting theimportance of ethics and how corruption can be combated.
a. Legislation on the lines of the US False Claims Act should be enacted,providing for citizens and civil society groups to seek legal relief againstfraudulent claims against the government. This law should have thefollowing elements:
i. Any citizen should be able to bring a suit against any person oragency for a false claim against the government.
ii. If the false claim is established in a court of law, then the person/agency responsible shall be liable for penalty equal to five times theloss sustained by the exchequer or society.
iii. The loss sustained could be monetary or non-monetary as in theform of pollution or other social costs. In case of non-monetaryloss, the court would have the authority to compute the loss inmonetary terms.
iv. The person who brought the suit shall be suitably compensatedout of the damages recovered.
a. It is necessary to evolve norms and practices requiring proper screeningof all allegations/complaints by the media, and taking action to put themin the public domain.
b. The electronic media should evolve a Code of Conduct and a self regulatingmechanism in order to adhere to a Code of Conduct as a safeguard againstmalafide action.
c. Government agencies can help the media in the fight against corruptionby disclosing details about corruption cases regularly.
a. Operational guidelines of all developmental schemes and citizen centric programmes should provide for a social audit mechanism.
a. Every Ministry/Department may undertake an immediate exercise toidentify areas where the existing ‘monopoly of functions’ can be temperedwith competition. A similar exercise may be done at the level of StateGovernments and local bodies. This exercise may be carried out in a timebound manner, say in one year, and a road map laid down to reduce‘monopoly’ of functions. The approach should be to introduce competitionalong with a mechanism for regulation to ensure performance as perprescribed standards so that public interest is not compromised.
b. Some Centrally Sponsored schemes could be restructured so as to provideincentives to States that take steps to promote competition in servicedelivery.
c. All new national policies on subjects having large public interface (andamendments to existing policies on such subjects) should invariablyaddress the issue of engendering competition.
a. There is need to bring simplification of methods to the center-stage ofadministrative reforms. Leaving aside specific sectoral requirements, the broadprinciples of such reforms must be: adoption of ‘single window’ approach,minimizing hierarchical tiers, stipulating time limits for disposal etc.
b. The existing Departmental Manuals and Codes should be thoroughlyreviewed and simplified with a responsibility on the Head of theDepartment to periodically update such documents and make availablesoft-copies on-line and hard copies for sale. These manuals must be writtenin very precise terms, and phrases like ‘left to the discretion of’, ‘as far aspossible’, ‘suitable decision may be taken’ etc should be avoided. Thisshould be followed for all rules and regulations governing issue ofpermissions, licenses etc.
c. A system of rewards and incentives for simplification and streamlining ofprocedures may be introduced in each government organization.
d. The principle of ‘positive silence’ should generally be used, though thisprinciple cannot be used in all cases. Wherever permissions/licenses etcare to be issued, there should be a time limit for processing of the sameafter which permission, if not already given, should be deemed to havebeen granted. However, the rules should provide that for each such casethe official responsible for the delay must be proceeded against.
37. Using Information Technology
a. Each Ministry/Department/Organization of Government should draw up a plan for use of IT to improve governance. In any government process,use of Information Technology should be made only after the existingprocedures have been thoroughly re-engineered.
b. The Ministry of Information and Technology needs to identifycertain governmental processes and then take up a project of theircomputerization on a nationwide scale.
c. For computerization to be successful, computer knowledge ofdepartmental officers needs to be upgraded. Similarly, the NIC needs tobe trained in department specific activities, so that they could appreciateeach other’s view point and also ensure that technology providersunderstand the anatomy of each department.
a. The Commission recommends encouragement of the mechanism of ‘integrity pacts’. The Ministry of Finance may constitute a Task Force with representatives from Ministries of Law and Personnel to identify the type of transactions requiring such pacts and to provide for a protocol for entering into such a pact. The Task Force may, in particular, recommend whether any amendment in the existing legal framework like the Indian Contract Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act is required to make such agreements enforceable.
a. All government offices having public interface should undertake a reviewof their activities and list out those which involve use of discretion. In allsuch activities, attempt should be made to eliminate discretion. Where itis not possible to do so, well-defined regulations should attempt to ‘bound’the discretion. Ministries and Departments should be asked to coordinatethis task in their organizations/offices and complete it within one year.
b. Decision-making on important matters should be assigned to a committeerather than individuals. Care has to be exercised, however, that this practiceis not resorted to when prompt decisions are required.
c. State Governments should take steps on similar lines, especially in localbodies and authorities, which have maximum ‘public contact’.
a. The supervisory role of officers needs to be re-emphasised. It bears reiterationthat supervisory officers are primarily responsible for curbingcorruption among their subordinates, and they should take all preventivemeasures for this purpose.
b. Each supervisory officer should carefully analyze the activities in his/herorganization/office, identify the activities which are vulnerable tocorruption and then build up suitable preventive and vigilance measures.All major instances of loss caused to the government or to the public, byofficials by their acts of omission or commission should be enquired intoand responsibility fixed on the erring officer within a time-frame.
c. In the Annual Performance Report of each officer, there should be acolumn where the officer should indicate the measures he took to controlcorruption in his office and among subordinates. The reporting officershould then give his specific comments on this.
d. Supervisory officers who give clean certificates to subordinate corruptofficers in their Annual Performance Reports should be asked to explaintheir position in case the officer reported upon is charged with an offenceunder the Prevention of Corruption Act. In addition, the fact that theyhave not recorded adversely about the integrity of their subordinatecorrupt officers should be recorded in their reports.
e. Supervisory officers should ensure that all offices under them pursue apolicy of suo motu disclosure of information within the ambit of the Rightto Information Act.
a. Service providers should converge their activities so that all services aredelivered at a common point. Such common service points could also beoutsourced to an agency, which may then be given the task of pursuingcitizens, requests with concerned agencies.
b. Tasks, which are prone to corruption, should be split up into differentactivities that can be entrusted to different persons.
c. Public interaction should be limited to designated officers. A ‘singlewindow front office’ for provision of information and services to thecitizens with a file tracking system should be set up in all governmentdepartments.
a. All offices having large public interface should have an online complainttracking system. If possible, this task of complaint tracking should beoutsourced.
b. There should be an external, periodic mechanism of ‘audit’ of complaintsin offices having large public interface.
c. Apart from enquiring into each complaint and fixing responsibilityfor the lapses, if any, the complaint should also be used to analyse thesystemic deficiencies so that remedial measures are taken.
a. Risk profiling of jobs needs to be done in a more systematic andinstitutionlised manner in all government organizations.
b. Risk profiling of officers should be done by a committee of ‘eminentpersons’ after the officer has completed ten years of service, and thenonce in every five years. The committee should use the following inputsin coming to a conclusion:
(i) The performance evaluation of the reported officer.
(ii) A self-assessment given by the reported officer focusing on the efforts he/she has made to prevent corruption in his/her career.
(iii) Reports from the vigilance organization.
(iv)A peer evaluation to be conducted confidentially by the committee through an evaluation form.
a. It should be prescribed that as soon as any major irregularity is detected or suspected by the audit team, it should be immediately taken note of by government. A suitable mechanism for this may be put in place. It shall be the responsibility of the head of the office to enquire into any such irregularity and initiate action.
b. Audit teams should be imparted training in forensic audit.
c. Each office should make an annual public statement regarding pending audit queries.
a. Taking proactive vigilance measures should primarily be the responsibility of the head of the office. Some possible measures are indicated in para (6.14.2).
a. Supervisory officers should assess the integrity of his/her subordinates based on his/her handling of cases, complaints and feedback from different sources. This could then become an important input for risk profiling of officers.
a. A national database containing the details of all corruption cases at all levels should be created. This database should be in the public domain. Identified authorities should be made responsible for updating the database regularly.
a. Every allegation of corruption received through complaints or fromsources cultivated by the investigating agency against a public servantmust be examined in depth at the initial stage itself before initiating anyenquiry. Every such allegation must be analyzed to assess whether theallegation is specific, whether it is credible and whether it is verifiable.Only when an allegation meets the requirements of these criteria, shouldit be recommended for verification, and the verification must be takenup after obtaining approval of the competent authority. The levels ofcompetent authorities for authorizing verifications/enquiries must be fixedin the anti-corruption agencies for different levels of suspect officers.
b. In matters relating to allegations of corruption, open enquiries shouldnot be taken up straightaway on the basis of complaints/sourceinformation. When verification/secret enquiries are approved, it shouldbe ensured that secrecy of such verifications is maintained and theverifications are done in such a manner that neither the suspect officernor anybody else comes to know about it. Such secrecy is essential notonly to protect the reputation of innocent and honest officials but also toensure the effectiveness of an open criminal investigation. Such secrecyof verification/enquiry will ensure that in case the allegations are foundto be incorrect, the matter can be closed without anyone having come toknow of it. The Inquiry / Verification Officers should be in a position toappreciate the sensitivities involved in handling allegations of corruption.
c. The evaluation of the results of verification/enquiries should be done in acompetent and just manner. Much injustice can occur due to faultyevaluation of the facts and the evidence collected in support of such facts.Personnel handling this task should not only be competent and honestbut also impartial and imbued with a sense of justice.
d. Whenever an Inquiry Officer requires to consult an expert to understandtechnical / complex issues, he can do so, but the essential requirement ofproper application of mind has to take place at every stage to ensure thatno injustice is caused to the honest and the innocent.
e. Capacity building in the anti-corruption agencies should be assuredthrough training and by associating the required experts during enquiries/investigations. Capacity building among public servants who are expectedto take commercial / financial decisions should be built through suitabletraining programmes.
f. The supervisory officers in the investigating agencies should ensure that onlythose public servants are prosecuted against whom the evidence is strong.
g. There should be profiling of officers. The capabilities, professionalcompetence, integrity and reputation of every government servant mustbe charted out and brought on record. Before proceeding against anygovernment servant, reference should be made to the profile of thegovernment servant concerned.
h. A special investigation unit should be attached to the proposed Lokpal(Rashtriya Lokayukta)/State Lokayuktas/Vigilance Commission, toinvestigate allegations of corruption against investigative agencies. Thisunit should be multi-disciplinary and should also investigate cases ofallegations of harassment against the investigating agency. Similar unitsshould also be set up in States.
By: Abhipedia ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses