Central Vigilance Commission Failed By Railways!
Railways become the singular Ministry to make non-sense of CVC recommendations
“Non-compliance of commission’s advice and other areas of concern” CVC report to Parliament & President
Surresh Tripathi
The case of Chalia and Silas is a classic example of ‘Mindless application of mind’ by ‘Storekeeper’ ExCRB A. K. Mital and former Minister for Railways Suresh Prabhu, where a perverse order in total disregard of Central Vigilance Commission’s advice was given against two IRTS officers; M. S. Chalila and Sandeep Silas, just because Prabhu wanted to earn brownie points and curry favour of the Prime Minister, saving himself from being sacked (which eventually happened) and the ‘Storekeeper’ displaying sycophancy of the highest order to achieve extension or reappointment as Chairman, Railway Board. Selfishness has never been witnessed in this cheap manner where you sacrifice two officers to defamation, and victimize them again and again just to perpetuate yourself in a government position.
Now, CVC in its Annual Report-2017 submitted to Parliament has passed strictures against the Ministry of Railways and clearly informed the Parliament that Railways did not heed the laid down procedure while disagreeing with CVC advice communicated twice that “NO CASE IS MADE OUT” for prosecution or for regular departmental action at all against these two officers.
It becomes clear that Railways under Suresh Prabhu very cunningly schemed to bypass the CVC advice by asking the second opinion of CVC & CBI, both, simultaneously. This shows the Machiavellian mind of Storekeeper as no Ministry asks for the second opinion of CBI in face of CVC advice, knowing fully well that as per CVC Act, The CVC is the monitoring and superintending agency above CBI. When CVC, the oversight statutory body instituted by an Act of Parliament is saying after detailed inquiry and tripartite meetings between CVC, Railways, and CBI, that there is no case made out for prosecution or even RDA why was Railways hell-bent upon issuing prosecution sanction against these officers?
‘RailSamachar’ quotes from the CVC Annual Report 2017
“4.1 The Central Vigilance Commission in the exercise of its functions and powers under Section 8(1) (g) of the CVC Act, 2003, … “The advice tendered by the Commission is based on a reasoned appreciation of all the facts, documents and records relating to a particular case, which are brought to its notice by the organizations concerned. Acceptance of the Commission’s reasoned advice in a majority of cases by the Disciplinary Authorities is an indicator of the objectivity and fairness of the Commission’s advice”.
4.2 The Commission has observed that during the year 2017, there were some significant deviations from the Commission’s advice. ……..In all such categories of cases, the concerned Disciplinary Authorities are expected to independently take a final decision after due application of mind, keeping in view the Commission’s advice/recommendations tendered.
4.3 NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMISSION’S ADVICE OR NON-CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSION VITIATES THE VIGILANCE PROCESS AND WEAKENS THE IMPARTIALITY OF VIGILANCE ADMINISTRATION. Cases of deviation from prescribed procedure or non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice considered fit for specific mention are presented in this report as given below:
Brief details of these cases are as follows:
Case: S.No.1
A Sr. DCM permitted transportation of iron ore at lower rates, causing huge loss of revenue to the Railways. CVC in June 2016, the Commission, in agreement with the CBI, advised initiation of Major penalty proceedings against the Sr. DCM. On being approached for reconsideration, the Commission reiterated its advice of initiation of MAJOR PENALTY proceedings.
Outcome
The Disciplinary Authority did not implement the Commission’s advice and served a memorandum of COUNSELLING to the concerned Sr.DCM on 10.08.2017 for his failure to conduct due diligence. This is an administrative action not having any formal consequence as against formal disciplinary action advised by the Commission.
The case has been treated as a deviation from Commission’s advice.
Case: S.No.2
A GGM of IRCTC was caught red-handed by CBI in his office demanding and accepting illegal gratification. CVC advised PROSECUTION AND INITIATION OF MAJOR PENALTY proceedings on 15.01.2013. On being approached for reconsideration after 4 years, the Commission reiterated its advice on 28.08.2017
Outcome
The Disciplinary Authority did not implement the Commission’s advice and issued ADMINISTRATIVE WARNING to the then GGM of IRCTC on 30.08.2017 for lapse regarding non-intimation of the transaction of certain movable properties. The procedure laid down for consultation has also not been followed before deviating from the advice of the Commission.
The case has been treated as a deviation from Commission’s advice.
Case: S.No.3
In a case of irregularities in re-engagement of retired staff on daily remuneration basis in Railway Electrification, the CVC advised initiation of MINOR PENALTY proceedings on 05.05.2015. On being approached for reconsideration, the Commission reiterated its advice on 25.05.2016.
Outcome
The Disciplinary Authority (GM/CORE) did not implement the Commission’s advice and decided for COUNSELLING to the concerned Dy.CEE.
The case has been treated as a deviation from Commission’s advice.
Case: S.No.4
DFM/ALD carried out financial vetting of procurement proposals ignoring glaring irregularities such as the following: (i) Splitting of demands by Sr. DEE to bring the proposals within his financial powers (ii) Booking of 89 Civil Works cases under the expenditure head meant for Plant & Machinery. CVC advised imposition of a suitable MAJOR PENALTY against the then DFM in its second stage advice.
Outcome
In this case, the DA opined that suitable major penalty be imposed on the DFM and resubmitted the case to Railway Board because penalty proposed was not within the competence of GM. Railway Board as the authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (vi) of 61 Rule 6 of RS (D&A) Rules has imposed a minor penalty of ‘CENSURE’ on the then DFM on the date of his retirement. The Commission has observed that the procedure followed in the case was not appropriate.
The penalty imposed by Railway Board is a deviation from the Commission’s advice
Case: S.No.5
The Chief Engineer (Construction) of a Railway forwarded a proposal to the Chief Administrative Officer for execution of a new work under an old expired contract despite the fact that fresh tenders for this new work had already been invited and bids were opened. As per procedure, the new work should have been got executed after finalization of the fresh tender. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) approved the proposal for execution of the said work. The CAO was not competent to award the work in this manner. These powers were vested with the GM of the Zonal Railway and with the concurrence of FA&CAO.
CVC in June 2016, the Commission advised MINOR PENALTY proceedings against the then Chief Engineer (CE(C)) and the Chief Administrative Officer. On receipt of a request for reconsideration, the Commission reiterated its advice.
Outcome
The Disciplinary Authority took a view that NO ACTION was warranted against the then Chief Engineer and the then Chief Administrative Officer. The DA has argued that the evidence brought out against them is only circumstantial and no documentary evidence has been put on record. The DA has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the execution of work at the site was in the knowledge of senior officers (CE(C) and CAO) or that they took the decision with any malafide intention. Therefore, the DA vide order dated 24.05.2017 EXONERATED them from the charge. The final decision of the DA is at variance with the Commission’s second stage advice.
This has been treated as a case of deviation.
Case: S.No.6
In a case, CBI sought sanction for prosecution of two SAG level IRTS officers. It was alleged that certain licensee caterer firms caused huge loss to the Govt exchequer by supplying packaged drinking water other than ‘Rail Neer’ on premium trains like Rajdhani, Shatabdi and Duranto in Northern Railway in violation of the contract with the Railways, but the CCM (Catering) did not take any penal action nor passed orders for withholding the payment of defaulting firms.
Advice
The Commission in agreement with Railway Board advised that NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR PROSECUTION of both SAG officers. Commission also said that NO CASE IS MADE OUT EVEN FOR REGULAR DEPARTMENTAL ACTION.
The case was received in the Commission again as the competent authority desired to have an opinion of CVC and CBI again. The Commission reiterated its earlier advice for not granting sanction for prosecution.
Outcome
The COMPETENT AUTHORITY at variance with the advice of the commission ACCORDED SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION u/s 19 of the PC Act in respect of both the officers on 14.03.2017.
The Commission requested Railway Board to clarify as to whether the procedure prescribed in the DoP&T guidelines prescribing consultation with DoP&T, if the competent authority does not propose to accept the Commission’s advice, was followed by Railway Board.
The Ministry of Railways has opined that “the sanction order passed by Hon’ble MR has been authenticated without referring the case to DOP&T under inference that the extant instructions of DOP&T call for referring the cases of disagreement to DOP&T where CVC advice is for granting sanction of prosecution but the Competent Authority declines to grant the sanction. This case, however, was reverse”.
The Commission has observed that the instruction of the DOP&T is that where there is a disagreement between CVC and the DA, the matter has to be referred to the DOP&T for a final view.
This is a case of deviation from the Commission’s advice and of not following the laid down procedure of consultation with DoP&T.
Minister for Railways Mr. Piyush Goyal, your Railways earning bad reputation because of total disregard of CVC advice. It appears that CBI is being used as a tool for some ulterior reasons in Minister cell for picking and choosing officers who have to be destroyed while rogues and rascals have to be let scot-free.
Examine the conduct of all officers posted in Prabhu’s Minister cell and of Secretary Branch immediately who deal with these cases.
इसी को कहते हैं रेलवे का कलियुग !
‘प्रभु’ ने दिखा दिया सीवीसी को ठेंगा,
अब आपको मंहगा पड़ रहा है संसद के सामने जवाब देना !!