Vigilance department has lost control over its officers?
HERALD CORRESPONDENT
CORTALIM, OCT 25
Even as the Department of Vigilance observes “Vigilance Awareness Week”, to create awareness on harmful effects of corruption amongst the public, the department’s functioning and performance has come in for censure from Vasco-based RTI activist Savio Corriea.
According to Corriea, the functions of the Directorate were to cause investigations into the complaints against public servants involving the issues of corruption, lack of integrity and misconduct, information obtained under RTI revealed that the anti-corruption watchdog had no control on disciplinary proceedings initiated by respective departments on its advice.
The Directorate was blissfully unaware of the progress of the departmental inquiries or the time taken to dispose them or penalties imposed on the tainted officials.
Correia states that his RTI queries have revealed some startling facts on the role of “Vigilance Officers” appointed by the Directorate in some departments.
It had no records at all on their working and ironically and the applicant was asked to seek the information from the respective departments.
Their duties include receiving complaints from general public, monitoring disciplinary and vigilance cases against staff of the department, conducting surprise visits into various sections and subordinate offices and identification of probable places of corruption and officials of doubtful integrity and those living beyond means.
These officers were not required to submit reports of work done in vigilance matters to the Directorate nor did they undergo any training or refresher courses in vigilance administration.
While the current list of “Vigilance Officers” in possession of the Directorate was outdated with many officers having been transferred or retired, only thirteen out of the 50-odd departments and PSU’s had such officers on their rolls.
No surprise inspections were conducted by the Directorate during the period 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2010; like was the position insofar as inspection of works during construction stage was concerned.
The Directorate’s performance of investigation and disposal of complaints received was far from satisfactory. Out of the 1393 complaints received during the last five years from 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2010, preliminary investigations into one-third (468) of these cases was still in progress.
Implementation of RTI Act by the Directorate also came in for criticism.
Correia alleged that suo-moto disclosure under Section 4 (1) (b) had not been made even five years after the en-action of the legislation while information available on the website was redundant.
Correia charged the Vigilance Directorate of resisting attempts by citizens to probe into its affairs.
“I was compelled to lodge a complaint of indiscipline and insubordination against a senior officer for refusing to comply with his superiors’ instructions to furnish RTI information to me which is now pending before the Information Commission”, he said.
Public perception of political interference in its working and that its actions are aimed only at low level corruption while high level corruption goes on unabated could be overcome by pursuing cases against the higher echelons.
The Directorate should identify the public as an important stakeholder and promote accountability and transparency in its working.
Correia also felt that there ought to be a paradigm shift from punitive vigilance to preventive and proactive vigilance management.
