CVC Vittal takes a step back

Mathur8217;s opposition reportedly forced Vittal to 8220;radically modify8221; the order. Mathur, when contacted, said that the decision had been amended and would be implemented in the fresh lists.8220;I have conveyed my views to Vittal since I did not have the opportunity earlier. Yes, I do not think that people who are merely facing charges should be named like this so we are changing the order,8221; saidMathur.

Mathur was out of town and was not consulted when Vittal decided to put out a list of nearly 100 officials who are facing charges. On his return, Mathur took up the matter with Vittal and reportedly told him that he did not agree with the order and 8220;strongly advised8221; that the order be modified. Vittal said that Mathur was not consulted since he does not sit on the administrative committee which took the decision.

In his note of dissent, Mathur is believed to have said that a proper approach has not been adopted in making the names public as a major or minor penalty which is the basis for the list is 8220;only the first-term advise.8221;

Following this, proper proceedings are launched, show-cause notice is issued to the official and only then does the CVC contemplate regular action by asking the disciplinary authority 8212; the ministry concerned and the parent cadre of the official 8212; to either take action or dismiss the matter.

Vittal said the CVC was in the process of preparing an omnibus list ofall departments including Customs and Income Tax which will be made public soon.

This is not the first time that Vittal and Mathur have been at loggerheads. After Mathur, a retired IPS officer, took over as VC he wrote to Vittal saying that he was not being consulted in all matters. He reportedly said that they were both equal under the CVC Act and Vittal was only 8220;the Cental Vigilance Commissioner not the Chief VC8221;.