CVC shows how Govt dumps its orders

• Despite proof of MMTC officials giving undue favour to a private firm and facilitating misappropriation of six kgs of gold, they were exonerated

These are some instances the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) categorizes as the ‘‘few’’ cases in which its advice for registration of criminal cases or imposition of penalties was ignored by government departments and ministries.

In one year (2003-2004) alone, the ‘‘few’’ cases of ‘‘non-compliance’’ of CVC’s orders totalled 225. Among them, cases which bosses of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Railways, Airports Authority of India and others ignored the written advice and penalties ordered by the CVC after years of bureaucratic paperchase and inquiry.

Snapshots of 20 of the 225 cases have been included for special mention by the CVC in its annual report for 2004. The report was tabled in Parliament last week but has not yet been cleared for publication by the Department of Personnel and Training.

In its annual report, the CVC has included an entire chapter on cases of non-compliance and delays. The CVC noted, ‘‘the advice tendered by the Commission is after due and careful consideration of the facts of the cases forwarded to it. However, there are a few cases of either non-acceptance of Commission advice or non-consultation with the Commission… this vitiates the vigilance process and weakens the impartiality of the vigilance administration.’’

Details of several of the cases show how grave some of the allegations are. And how obvious the cover-up. The very first one highlighted deals with a case of ‘‘massive’’ evasion of excise duty, in which the CVC commented, ‘‘the CBEC knowingly allowed an erring official to escape without punishment.’’

There are two cases listed of the AAI, and in one, the loss to the exchequer has been estimated between Rs 1.7 crore to Rs 7.3 crore. The CVC’s comments: ‘‘This is a classic case of the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the AAI not paying heed to the repeated letters from the Commission and a fait accompli in the form of issuance of warning to the concerned officers being presented before the Commission.’

Besides the cases of non-compliance, the CVC has also listed 1,057 cases in which action by Departments and Ministries had been delayed beyond the stipulated three-month period. The CVC’s data shows that in 2004, 37% cases were ending investigation for more than three years and nearly 27% for a period ranging between one to three years.

The report also reveals that as of 2004-end, there were 165 cases pending with various government departments/ministries where sanction of prosecution was pending in CBI cases. The Ministry of Finance (with 56 cases) and Ministry of Communication (with 16) cases topped the list.