Tags:
Journalism of Courage
NEW DELHI, OCT 3: It was meant to introduce transparency in the functioning of bureaucracy. If the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) N Vittal could have his way, one would be able to download details of the wealth of any bureaucrat from his (CVC’s) website.
But with no legal obligation on them, no bureaucrat, except for Vittal himself, has declared details of their property on the site. Vittal’s declaration include two immovable properties owned by him — a three-bed room house in Ahmedabad and a two-bed room house in Gandhinagar. “If all officials do it, that would certainly improve transparency and lead to a corruption-free society,” Vittal told The Indian Express.
The CVC’s site is updated regularly and is significant for the abundance of names from the IAS, Customs, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the IPS. The list has swelled to 500-odd names. It was last updated on September 23 when several NDMC officials were put on the dock.
Some of the officials mentioned in the updated list are NDMC’s Chief Engineer, V P Chetal against whom the CVC put a “removal from service” advice. Chetal was subsequently removed from his high post.
However, in the case of several other officials, despite the CVC’s “advise”, punishment is still to be imposed with the website stating “information awaited.” For example, in the case of the Chief Architect NDMC, V P Gupta, despite the CVC advising “major penalty” in January 1999 action has not been taken.
In the case of the 17 NDMC officials listed, information is awaited for 16 officials. It is the same for all other government departments with senior officials such as R S Sethi, former joint secretary MHA, Beck Julius, former secretary, against whom the CVC advised prosecution but has to to be content with information awaited.
In a rare instance in the case of the Bofors accused then defence secretary, S K Bhatnagar — against whom the CVC had ordered prosecution in 1997 — the advise has actually been followed by “grant of sanction of prosecution” in May 1999.
Vittal, however, feels that the site has been a great success and introduced some accountability in the bureaucracy. After, his colleague, Vigilance Commissioner V S Mathur intervened, the original site was amended since several bureaucrats objected to the fact that the site also featured persons against whom “first stage advise” had been initiated. In its current shape, the site only features names of officials against whom final orders have been passed by the CVC.
