Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'central vigilance commission'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 50 results

  1. NEW DELHI: Vijai Sharma was chosen as the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) earlier this month ahead of two other strong contenders who had also made it to the short-list - former Union Coal secretary Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava and former LIC Chairman Dinesh Kumar Mehrotra. An RTI reply to activist Lokesh Batra by the government shows that these three names were put up before the selection committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha M .. Read more at: RTI reply reveals people who missed out on becoming Chief Information Commissioner - The Economic Times
  2. Hello, I am living in Kerala and having a Bsnl wired broadband connection. Last night someone had breaked the landline wire of a house next to my house and when the bsnl lineman came for enquiry they telling that we cut their wire and lineman calling very bad word to us and gone. Today, some other bsnl officers came to my house and telling we will file a vigilance complaint against you and we will disconnect your connection. but we didn't do nothing. So,RTI forum please help me as soon as possible in this case. Thanks
  3. To check leak of key information, the Commerce Ministry has asked its officers to clamp down on unauthorised persons loitering around their departments and also keep a track on personnel carrying the files from sections to officers. Besides, the ministry has decided to be prudent while "liberally supplying the information" under RTI Act and deny the access in cases like bilateral trade, prosecution or litigation and "trade secrets" of exporters and importers, sources said. Read at: Commerce Ministry ups vigilance to stop info leak | Business Standard News
  4. JAMMU: RTI activist Balvinder Singh, who is also the Convener of Sangarsh RTI Movement met Chief Vigilance Commissioner Shri Kuldeep Khoda, and apprised him with the most important issues relating to mismanagement and corrupt practice in various departments on the basis of information received under RTI by the activist. The main issues that come to discussion during the interaction were violation of Financial Code by different Executive Engineers and Drawing and Disbursing Officers of various departments at the fag end of the financial year. Read at: RTI Activist calls on Chief Vigilance Commissioner J&K - JK MONITOR
  5. subirs

    Online RTI CVC

    Dear Friends, Through website https://rtionline.gov.in we can file online RTI with many ministries and departments. But I am unable to find the way on how to file RTI with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Or it it we have to go through only postal way? regards Subir
  6. 79 percent rise in graft complaints to CVC, crosses 63K mark in 2014 New Delhi: More than 63,000 corruption complaints were received by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in 2014, a rise of 79 percent over the preceding year. The anti-corruption watchdog said it received 63,288 complaints last year as against 35,332 in 2013. These complaints include those filed by whistleblowers and anonymous complainants. "The commission has processed a record number of corruption complaints in the last year. All of them were dealt with within the prescribed time-frame," a CVC official said. The complaints were related to allegations of corruption in various central government ministries and departments, he said. The total of 63,288 is based on CVC's monthly reports for 2014. The final figure may go up or come down. "The final figure will be mentioned in the Commission's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament after June every year and then made public," the official said. Most of these complaints did not require any action due to lack of verifiable allegations and were merely filed as per the CVC corruption handling policy. Rest of them were sent to Chief Vigilance Officers of the ministries concerned for necessary action and report, he said. The anti-corruption watchdog had received 37,039, 16,929 and 16,260 complaints in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, according to its annual reports. Similarly, 14,206 and 10,142 complaints were received in 2009 and 2008, respectively. In 2007 and 2006, the Commission had received 11,062 and 10,798 complaints, respectively. Also, 9,320, 10,735, 11,397 complaints were received by it during 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively, as per the annual reports. The Commission, which is working without its regular chief for over four months, also dealt with 5,743 cases last year in which it recommended penalty and action against corrupt government officials. The CVC gives its advice in cases of corruption against corrupt government officials and the disciplinary authority of the ministry concerned acts on it. It had disposed of 4,801 cases in 2013, according to the Commission's data. In 2012 and 2011, the probity watchdog tendered its advice in 5,720 and 5,341 cases, respectively. Central Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar and Vigilance Commissioner J M Garg completed their term on September 28 and September 7, last year, respectively. The CVC is headed by a Central Vigilance Commissioner and has two Vigilance Commissioners. Rajiv, a former Director General of Central Industrial Security Force, is acting as interim chief of the transparency watchdog. As many as 5,522, 5,317 and 4,328 cases were disposed of in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In 2007 and 2006, the CVC finalised proceedings in 4,672 and 4,683 cases, respectively. "CVC has been stressing on processing all cases referred to it for its advice as early as possible. More number of cases have been disposed of in 2014 as against 2013. This has been done when CVC is facing shortage of staff," the official said. About 230 employees are working in the Commission as against its sanctioned strength of 296, according to its latest annual report. Read More: 79 percent rise in graft complaints to CVC, crosses 63K mark in 2014 | Zee News
  7. Hello, can i ask the question like please available documents in a case, that if a person involve in a departmental vigilance case , how many punishment could be imposed.
  8. The state vigilance bureau (SVB) is accused of concealing the findings of an inquiry into a scam in implementing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) in Ambala district. In the case registered in February 2011 in Ambala, the role of several senior bureaucrats and state forest department officials was investigated. The bureau, after completing its report, kept it secret. In the past three months, it headquarters has twice turned down the Right to Information (RTI) Act applications (HT has copies) for details on the grounds that the report is pending with the Haryana government for “final consideration”. Read at: Vigilance bureau buried job plan scam probe report: RTI applicant - Hindustan Times
  9. Published by Niticentral.com on Dec 22, 2014 Supreme Court on CVC Selection - Kartikeya Tanna deconstructs Last week, in a petition filed by the Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration, the Supreme Court issued an order stating that before any appointments are made for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner or other vigilance commissioners, the leave of the Court would have to be taken. Here is the link to the order. The Centre for Integrity, Governance and Training in Vigilance Administration filed a PIL alleging that the Central government was going ahead with the appointment of CVC and VC without giving wide publicity to vacancies arising on completion of tenure of previous CVC and VC. The PIL alluded to the fact that the Central government was restricting names for the posts to the recommendations of the bureaucracy. In order to ensure that due procedure is followed in appointment of CVC and VC, i.e., that wide publicity was given to vacancies arising from CVC’s appointment and that applications was, therefore, not confined only to bureaucrats, Supreme Court ordered the Central government to “take the leave of the Court” before forwarding the names to the President for making appointments. In a sense, therefore, this adds another step in the appointment process duly established by an Act of Parliament. Section 4 of the CVC Act 2003 stipulates that a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha recommend names finalised for the post of CVC and VCs which are then given the final seal of approval by the President. Notably, in the situation that there is no Leader of Opposition (as is the case in this term), the leader of the single largest opposition party is a member of such a committee. Therefore, there can never be a situation where a member of the political opposition is not a part of the deliberations and discussions of the committee. If the two members of the ruling government on the committee – the PM and Home Minister – try to force their favourites to the posts, the third member has the option of making his dissent known through several channels. For example, when the PM and Home Minister in UPA tried to force through Mr. PJ Thomas as CVC, the then LoP in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj objected to his appointment which was eventually held illegal by the Supreme Court. However, it seems that the Supreme Court isn’t worried about who is chosen, but on how people are chosen. In other words, Supreme Court is worried about whether the due procedure is followed, i.e., whether wide publicity is given and appointment is not restricted solely to bureaucrats. ThisIndian Express report confirms this. In other words, in order to address its concern about a lack of transparency in the procedure, Supreme Court has insisted that, before sending the recommendations to the President, it be submitted those names. One wonders, however, what real purpose this “vetting” serves to ensure that due procedure is followed. The committee consists of one member who will always be from the political opposition. That itself is a ‘check and balance’ of sorts to ensure due procedure. Moreover, it can also be insisted that minutes of the meeting of this committee be made available either through the website or through an RTI. By merely receiving the list of names finalised by the committee for forwarding to the President, how, one wonders, would Supreme Court assure itself of transparency and adherence to due procedure? If the Committee selects Mr. X as CVC and informs Supreme Court in a sealed cover that Mr. X is finalised, how would that fact per se satisfy the Supreme Court of transparency and due procedure? Or, is it the case that Supreme Court would automatically assume that there is no due procedure if people finalised for appointment are from the bureaucracy? Would Supreme Court ask the Central government why the names finalised do not include people from other walks of life? And if so, wouldn’t that amount to pondering over who is finalised which isn’t what the Supreme Court intends? It frankly seems as if Supreme Court has made itself step into a process which is very well-defined by a duly enacted law. If the appointment of a CVC or a VC is questionable, it can, indeed, be challenged. But for the Supreme Court to insist that it will vet names finalised before they are sent to the President is not only outside the bounds of the law, but serves no real purpose other than second-guessing the committee’ decision.
  10. kundan_scorpio

    How to get your FIR lodged

    Here is all what a common man can do if police does not register FIR. a) Talk to SHO of the concerned Police station and ask him to register FIR. Most probably he will try to persuade you not to register FIR and instead ask you to write complaint on a piece of paper. Police is bound to take action on FIR as they need to give explanation of each & every FIR registered in a month to the district magistrate. No such boundation exists for a complaint. b) In case SHO does not register your FIR (which will be the usual case), you can meet ACP or DCP of that zone. c) In case you can't take off from your office work, write a registered mail to DCP with a copy to ACP or district magistrate of that district with a copy of the complaint and asking for an explanation that why your FIR was not registered? d) There is a website of delhi police where you will find all the relevant persons of all dcps, acps and commissioner of delhi police to whom you can contact through email. e) If nothing works out the last thing you can do is to call up at this number and register your complaint on phone itself. For Police related complaints you can also contact to Flying Squad of Vigilance Branch : (011) 23213355. Refer these websites for further information: http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/contactus.aspx http://india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=http://mha.gov.in/ http://pgportal.gov.in/ Getting your FIR lodged is absolutely must as it makes police accountable to take action. This will definitely help to bring down the crime rate. f) If Police does not take action on your complaint or FIR you can file a 10 rs RTI which is a handwritten application to be deposited at DCP of that zone. [/color][/size][/font][/b] Hope this information is useful. Regards A Common aware Man
  11. I am concerned about my options if the authorities concerned don't follow or comply with Hon'ble CIC's orders/decisions. What are next steps a person needs to follow? What is the time frame to take action against non comply of orders? Recently most of the CIC's orders don't consider any penalty even though charges of corruption is there, so how should a person should frame his/her second appeal so that dishonest act attract some sort of monetary or punishment as per conduct Rules like suspension,termination of service etc. I have seen that the officials deliberately delay information as most people don't approach CIC considering the long list of pending cases, not to mention APIO provide absurd reply or provide a weblink to websites which are most often remain down, recently it was observed Delhi Govt.,CVC and even CBI websites remain down due to some technical snag. Could or Should a person approach CVC or CBI on the basis of non reply related to corruption cases by PIO/APIO.
  12. ​CVC slams Department of Revenue, CBDT and CBEC for shielding corrupt officials Reported by Aman Sharma in economictimes.indiatimes.com on Jan 3,2013 CVC slams Department of Revenue, CBDT and CBEC for shielding corrupt officials - The Economic Times NEW DELHI: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has slammed the Department of Revenue in theMinistry of Finance and two of its key organs - theCentral Bureau of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) - for shielding its allegedly corrupt senior officials. In response to an RTI application filed by ET, CVC has revealed the minutes of all annual review meetings held by it in 2012 with the Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of various government sectors. The minutes of one such meeting held on July 27, 2012, with CVOs of the Revenue and Transport Sector reveal that CVC came down hard on the Department of Revenue, CBDT andCBEC for going slow against corruption. The minutes clearly state that CVC Pradeep Thakur said at the meeting that there is a "perceptible tendency" in the Department of Revenue of "trying to protect particularly senior officers" in the organisation. CVC asked Shashi Shekhar, the additional secretary (revenue) and CVO of Department of Revenue, to make concerted efforts to liquidate the pendency of corruption complaints, saying the commission was concerned over the inordinate delay in implementation of its advice for action. CVC also criticised CBEC at this meeting, saying that certain accused officers in CBEC are made to retire without any action against them for corruption and that action after retirement is "indefinitely delayed" to the advantage of the accused officers. The minutes state that CVC pointed out that investigating officers (IOs) in CBEC had the tendency to hold charges against officers as "not proved" in most of the cases and CVO also generally tend to agree with the findings of IO even in cases of glaring omissions and commissions. "Reports of IOs are not scrutinised by CVO with due objectivity and diligence. CVC stated that IOs, at times, even ignore the board's own guidelines while conducting inquiries and that accountability should be fixed by IOs in fair and just manner even against their own colleagues and no personal relations should interfere in the decision making of IOs," the minutes provided under RTI state. Shielding top officers is a phenomenon in CBDT too, the minutes indicate. "CVC expressed its concern at the inordinate delays being caused by CBDT in finalising regular departmental action cases, implementation of CVC's advice and in grant of sanction for prosecution. CVC stated that such delays indicated reluctance of the administration in taking action against senior officials and such delays, especially in grant of sanction for prosecution, are completely unacceptable. CVC also expressed its displeasure at the arbitrary fashion in which adjudicating officers are passing the orders while deciding cases of higher revenue implications," the minutes say. CVC was similarly anguished about the large number of pendency of action against allegedly corrupt officials in CBDT, saying Supreme Court has recently made it mandatory for prosecution sanction to be granted within three months and officers intentionally delaying the same to be held accountable. As per the CVC annual report for 2011, CBDT and CBEC were still to take action against a total of 474 corrupt officers against whom CVC advised action over six months ago. 334 such cases were pending in CBEC while 144 cases were pending in CBDT. In comparison, CBEC took action only against 69 of its officers last year while CBDT acted against just eight officers.
  13. No list of cops with criminal background Reported by thehindu.com on Jan 2,2013 The Hindu : Today's Paper News : No list of cops with criminal background The State Police Headquarters (PHQ) has not prepared or maintained a list of police officers with a criminal background, according to a reply from the State Public Information Officer to a Right To Information (RTI) plea submitted by S. Sreejith, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training). Mr. Sreejith had submitted the application in August last, citing media reports that said his name was included in a list of officers with criminal background and sought to know under the RTI Act whether such a list was being maintained by the PHQ. The reply from the State PIO came early last month, stating that there was no such list being prepared or maintained at the PHQ. In another response to his letter, Mr. Sreejith was informed by the Chief Secretary that his name was not included in the list of officers with criminal antecedents but was included only in a list of officers against whom vigilance cases had been registered. The said case was registered against him before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur on the basis of a complaint filed by one Ramesh Nambiar.
  14. Information commission raps vigilance boss Reported by Faizan Ahmad in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Oct 21, 2012 Information commission raps vigilance boss - The Times of India PATNA: State Information Commission (SIC) has taken serious exception to the plea of vigilance department's principal secretary A K Chouhan to reconsider its order of August 9, whereby the SIC had warned him of penal action under RTI Act for denying information to a petitioner. Chouhan, in a memo sent to the SIC through his department's public information officer (PIO) on Monday last, reiterated his earlier stand that the information sought by the petitioner concerned was not maintained by his department and hence could not be provided. The matter pertains to the query of a former legislator and social activist, Umadhar Singh, who had sought to know how many corruption cases were filed and disposed of by the vigilance department during the tenure of the present principal secretary, Chouhan. Information commissioner Farzand Ahmed, after hearing both the PIO and the petitioner, said in his order, "The review petition filed by the department chief didn't reflect any kind of accountability and transparency in its functioning. In this era of transparency and good governance, everyone is looking at the department with great hope. But the department itself doesn't know how many corruption-related cases are filed. The information sought by the petitioner is in public interest and not related to any individual." In his earlier order, Ahmed had urged the principal secretary to form a small team of officials to work on the petition and provide the information to the petitioner.
  15. In a vigilance query ,is the investigating officer's report can be viewed . Can we ask for it under RTI act. Sengu No I am not from Journalist forum
  16. As reported by Aman Sharma in indiatoday.intoday.in on 16 Jan 2012: Why government took its time to pick CVC : North News - India Today Why government took its time to pick CVC Current CVC Pradeep Kumar (right) was appointed after much deliberation. Former CVC P.J. Thomas. The ignominious exit of P. J. Thomas from the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) in 2011 appeared to have sent the Union government into a 'once bitten twice shy' mode as regards the selection of his successor. The reply to an RTI application moved by Mail Today tells the entire story behind the inordinate delay. It may be recalled that Thomas's appointment was struck down by the Supreme Court on March 3 last year. The documents provided under the RTI act revealed that on April 1, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had directed the department of personnel and training (DoPT) secretary to write to all the ministries and departments seeking nominations for the CVC's post. Singh also wanted the cabinet secretary to recommend names. Then DoPT secretary Alka Sirohi wrote to all the ministries as well as then cabinet secretary K. M. Chandrasekhar on April 5, and asked them to send their proposals latest by April 25. The ministries and departments met the deadline and duly sent the names of 21 IAS officers. But DoPT chose to decide that these officers would only be considered if their names also figured in the list sent by Chandrasekhar. When no list was received from Chandrasekhar by April 25, the government intriguingly decided to lend him an elaborate hand. A secretary-level list of IAS officers (serving and retired) was handed over to Chandrasekhar along with the suggested selection criteria. On May 19, a consolidated list of 574 IAS officers was submitted to the cabinet secretary after packing in as much information as possible about the career and service record of the contenders. Chandrasekhar's list of 20 IAS officers reached the Union minister of state for personnel on June 2," a document given under the RTI stated. Among the 20 names was that of Sirohi, opted out subsequently. But after two months of deliberation, she still had to prune Chandrasekhar's list because five officers nominated by him had already taken up other assignments and one had been served a departmental warning in 2003. On June 17, Sirohi submitted a list of 13 IAS officers nominated by the cabinet secretary and four non-IAS officers to personnel minister V. Narayanasamy. The minister finally zeroed in on five names on June 18 after studying reports from the IB, CBI and the Vigilance Commission. Four of these names were from Chandrasekhar's list, including then defence secretary Pradeep Kumar and retired secretaries R. P. Agrawal (higher education), Naresh Dayal (health) and Bijoy Chatterji (petroleum). On July 2, Pradeep Kumar was selected as the CVC. Incidentally, DoPT - the nodal ministry for the RTI - took over six months to reply to this plea.
  17. I want to know about the status vigilance department, UP , does it comes under RTI act ? On their website (i.e. http://vigilance.up.nic.in/ ) they have posted one pdf file under RTI tab, which creates confusion. Can you please clarify it.
  18. ssraghav

    How to frame Questions

    I want to file an application to get the whole case file against a PCS officer (UP Govt).I don't have any case number or any other particulars about this case. The only thing I know this officer have one case against him for having property more than his income since last 8-10 years. Please advise what kind of question should be asked so that officers can’t make me fool by giving some vague answer. Secondly where should I submit this application as I know it was under vigilance some time back, now should I go to vigilance department or I should approach to concerned department where this officer is posted in these days? Please advice.
  19. I was called to attend my office for inspection when I ws 32 km away tending to a friend suffering heartstroke admitted in govt hospital iccu. when I explained the situation, The VI prepared a non cooperation case against me. I am punished with 2step down cumulative . I am at the verge of retirement after 9 months. How can I get relief?
  20. As reported in indiatoday.intoday.in: Sushma dissent ignored in CVC appointment: LATEST HEADLINES : India Today Sushma dissent ignored in CVC appointment The UPA government had clearly ignored the note of dissent given by Sushma Swaraj during the appointment of P. J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. The reply to an RTI filed by activist Subhash Agarwal shows that Swaraj, the Opposition leader in the Lok Sabha, was against the move to appoint Thomas who had a tainted past owing to his involvement in the palmolein import scam in Kerala in 1991- 92. The reply ( a copy of which is in possession of Mail Today goes on to show that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and home minister P. Chidambaram had recommended Thomas's name. "The Committee under Section 4( 1) of the CVC Act 2003, comprising Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister of Home Affairs and Smt Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, met at 7 Race Course Road at 7.30 pm on September 3, 2010 to make recommendations for the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner in the Central Vigilance Commission," the reply stated. The panel had three names which included Bijoy Chatterjee, IAS ( 73/ WB), Thomas, IAS ( KL/ 73) and Subbaroyan Krishnan IAS ( retd Uttranchal/ 75). The committee recommended Thomas's name but recorded that Swaraj had disagreed. "After due consideration, the majority of the Committee recommended the name of Shri P. J. Thomas IAS ( KL/ 73) for appointment as the Central Vigilance Commissioner in the Central Vigilance Commission, with Smt Sushma Swaraj recording her disagreement." According to the CVC guidelines, the CVC is appointed by the President after obtaining the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, home minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Thomas was appointed as CVC after incumbent Pratyush Sinha completed his four- year term. Swaraj had suggested considering two other names or any other name from outside the list but the committee insisted on Thomas and made a recommendation to the President. The Supreme Court on Monday had made strong observations while questioning Thomas's appointment, who is an accused in the palmolein scam. The apex court had observed that the accused CVC will face embarrassment at every step while discharging his duty.
  21. deepakchia

    Vigilance & CVR Report

    Can I ask my vigilance report and copy of my record of verification of my character/CVR (character verification report by concerned police authority) & antecedents at the time of my appointment from my Admin HQ? If Yes, can some one please suggest draft RTI application.
  22. As reported by Chetan Chauhan at hindustantimes.com on May 07, 2011 The Right to Information Act may help to unveil the mystery behind the Central Vigilance Commission proposing and the CBI disposing in the Rs1,300-crore HUDCO scam. The Central Information Commission this week directed the CBI to provide the inquiry report on closing investigation in four cases where the CVC found "adequate evidence of paying bribes" to mobilise funds from Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) in 2006. The CBI had closed the case saying there was not enough evidence to proceed with the probe. This had resulted in the housing and urban development ministry submitting a closure report in Supreme Court in 2007. The corporation had invested Rs950 crore in West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance, Rs200 crore in Himachal Pradesh Infrastructure Development Board and Rs150 crore in Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation. There were allegations that money was paid to get these funds from HUDCO. “It appears that CVC found clear evidence showing bribes were taken. However, the CBI and the (Housing and Urban Development) ministry have come to the conclusion there is no wrong doing. If corruption is to be curtailed.... citizens need to get information of this nature," Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said. The CBI's information officer Pradeep Kumar had refused to provide information to RTI applicant AN Gupta on the ground that the probe report was confidential. The investigations were closed in 2007 and the SC was informed about it. Gandhi said the information officer had wrongly applied the exemption clauses and said "mere fears without any justification" could not be grounds for denying the citizen's fundamental right. The commission also said the Kumar had failed to justify the reasons for denying information as stipulated under the RTI Act. The scam HUDCO had sanctioned R14,500 crore as loans to different infrastructure corporations during the NDA regime. Three part-time HUDCO directors had allegedly sanctioned loans amounting to Rs5,300 crore to corporate houses in a day in the absence of a single permanent director CVC found that bribe was paid get the loans sanctioned The CBI was asked to investigate which did not find adequate evidence to proceed against the accused.
  23. Vigilance bodies out of RTI Act purview as reported in Express Buz Express News Service 20 Sep 2008 CHENNAI: Following a flood of applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information regarding the progress of corruption cases handled by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission (TSVC), the State Government has exempted both organisations from the purview of the RTI Act. A Government Order issued in this regard recently said revealing any information to any agency, including the aggrieved person, would be detrimental to the progress of the case. Of late, there has been a tendency on the part of some citizens to ask for a lot of information under the RTI Act, the GO observed. The DVAC and the TSVC primarily deal with investigation into alleged corrupt activities of public servants. The investigations and subsequent actions culminate in disciplinary action or criminal action in the appropriate courts of law, the GO said. “Confidentiality and secrecy in certain cases requires to be maintained during the whole process from the initial stage up to filing charge-sheet in the court on the one hand and up to issue of final orders in the case of disciplinary proceedings,” the order pointed out. “The government feels that in vigilance cases giving information at the initial stages, investigation stage and even prosecution stage would lead to unnecessary embarrassment and will definitely hamper due process on investigation,” the GO added. The State government has passed orders in this regard according to sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act. The Section states that “nothing contained in the Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisations established by the State Government, from time to time, by notification in the official gazette”. It may be recalled that former Social Welfare Minister Poongothai had to step down from the office following the release of her telephonic conversation with the former DVAC chief SK Upadhyay, who is now under suspension. Express Buzz - Vigilance bodies out of RTI Act purview
  24. As reported by ASHWINI SHRIVASTAVA at news.outlookindia.com on April 12, 2011 In a bid to speed up its probe, the CVC has asked Chief Vigilance Officers of government departments to prepare a list of officials who were allegedly involved in corruption while executing Commonwealth Games related projects. It has also asked all civic and construction agencies to put documents related to the Games works carried out by them on CVC's website. A special team of the Commission probing the Games related work for alleged graft has found evidence against senior government officials for rigged tender process, undue haste that led to supply of inferior quality products and poor construction of infrastructure related works. Sources said the Commission will make a department-wise list of such 'tainted' people who were involved in the corrupt practises to take speedy corrective action. "There have been several complaints from Non-Government Organisations and whistle blowers claiming that host of government employees were involved in corrupt practises. We have sent the complaints to concerned CVOs for investigation and report," a CVC official said. He said a complaint has also been sent to the CVO of Sports Ministry to probe the role of certain incompetent officials involved in carrying out infrastructure related works. Sources said the CVC has found series of financial irregularities on part of certain government employees from departments like Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Public Works Department (PWD), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Games Organising Committee among others. They said the watchdog has received a number of complaints alleging that various "incompetent" people were involvement in several projects that led to unjustified cost escalation and corruption. The move assume significance as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh appointed High level Committee under the chairmanship of former Comptroller and Auditor General V K Shunglu has found series of wrong doings by government officials. The Committee has faulted sacked OC chief Suresh Kalmadi and Secretary General Lalit Bhanot for their alleged involvement in irregularities. Besides Delhi Lt Governor Tejinder Khanna and Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit were blamed for alleged inadequacies in CWG projects. According to an RTI filed by PTI, the Commission is looking into at least 40 CWG-related construction and procurement works carried out by different government agencies for alleged financial irregularities. An analysis by Chief Technical Examination Wing of CVC had earlier found alleged financial and administrative irregularities worth about Rs 2,500 crore in 16 construction and procurement projects. Six of them were done by PWD, 3 by MCD, 2 each by CPWD, DDA, NDMC and 1 by RITES, a Government of India Enterprise, a CVC report said.
  25. Friends, dont mistake me for the title. Well i am writing out of my own anguish at the way Judiciary is looking at the information filed before them pertaining to corrupt officials. Take my example. I am a Scientist with quite a good reputation and my work relates to helping fix criminals to crime. I am a DNA analyst. My organisation (CDFD) which was set up to do DNA testing moved away from its charter and soon corrupt activities started. My organisation is managed by Dept of Biotechnology Govt of India. Well soon I was getting hearsay evidence of the corruption running into crores of rupees in which right from Secretary, Dept of Biotechnology to the purchase officer to the administrative officer to the LDC's were misappropriating Govt of India money or our money. So braving all odds and risking my career, I began collecting all information directly under RTI under my name. The organisation had to bend down and gave all the details of the misappropriations. Being a person of medico legal background, I drafted my questions cleverly without raising any doubts in the officials. After substantial evidence got collected, I complained to Central Bureau of Investigation in 2005 November. The CBI slept over it for 2 years and ultimately informed that they forwarded my complaint to the Organisation itself or the accused themselves. Can u believe this ? But this is a fact. Then I approached the CVC, which todate has not even replied to my reminders. Then I approached the Prime Minister's Office but they sent it to my Organisation and my Director took objection for approaching PMO directly. My Director wanted me to complain against him to the PMO through him and he said that in case he found merit in my complaint, he would forward it. Will any corrupt official forward a complaint against him to his superior. Height of bureaucracy ! Then the organisation came back upon on me in full force and subjected me to all kinds of humiliations and malafide actions. I went to High Court of A P for relief against such malafide actions with all evidence, but the Hon'ble Judges heard all other matters but still have not touched my matter since last 5 years. Maybe they too feel that I deserve such treatment for using RTI.:rolleyes: Just keep reading. These are all happening in the days when we think that RTI is going great guns. I have unearthed a scam of Rs 100 crores and the evidence is there in black and white and admitted by the accused but no agency is ready to take action on it. Fine after completing knocking all the doors, I decided to compile a fresh complaint in Feb-Mar 2010 and filed a private complaint in the designated Court of Special Judge CBI Hyderabad. The Court heard my matter for over a month and then finding merit and evidence in my case, forwarded my complaint to the CBI Hyderabad for investigation and report under 156(3). OK. Nothing happened till August 2010. Then I approached the CBI Court to ask what happened to the complaint. Then Court forwarded a letter to the CBI to seek the status. Please tighten ur seat belts now because what u r going to read now is going to shake u. The CBI Hyderabad on receiving the letter seeking the status from its own designated Court filed a petition in High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a order to quash the proceedings of the CBI Court directing it to investigate a Rs 100 crore scam committed by Scientists. Can u believe this. Usually after FIR is lodged the accused go to Court u/s 482 to quash the complaint but in my case the investigating agency itself is asking the case to be quashed on grounds of questionable authority of the CBI Court. Now I am frustrated. Because the High Court has started adjourning my case and I know its going to gather dust and the corrupt officials may retire or leave this world before my complaint sees the light of the day. So brothers and sisters, now tell me what should i do with the information collected by me under RTI. What use is RTI when it unearths the corruption and misappropriation but nobody is gonna act on it. Please tell me. I await ur replies and support.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy