Vigilance cases pending , dropped
and chargesheeted by Directorate
of Vigilance, Cuttack, Odisha
and chargesheeted by Directorate
of Vigilance, Cuttack, Odisha
Dear friends
In May, 2014, I had filed RTI Application to the PIO,
office of Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of Odisha seeking
the following information from 2009 to 2014.
office of Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of Odisha seeking
the following information from 2009 to 2014.
a. Number
of Vigilance cases filed by
Directorate vigilance in Odisha
of Vigilance cases filed by
Directorate vigilance in Odisha
b. Number of cases in which charge-sheet has been
filed and number of cases whether
investigation is going on.
filed and number of cases whether
investigation is going on.
c. Number
of cases of corruption and irregularities
received from the public
following which the Vigilance
case has been filed.
of cases of corruption and irregularities
received from the public
following which the Vigilance
case has been filed.
d. Number
of cases which has been filed by Vigialnce on its own.
of cases which has been filed by Vigialnce on its own.
e. Details of procedure followed
by the Vigilance starting from receiving the complaints of corruption
to filling charge sheet and time
oeriod fixed at each level.
by the Vigilance starting from receiving the complaints of corruption
to filling charge sheet and time
oeriod fixed at each level.
f.
Details of procedure to inform
the private persons who gave
complaint of corruption to the
vigilance about development of investigation.
Details of procedure to inform
the private persons who gave
complaint of corruption to the
vigilance about development of investigation.
The PIO denied
the information on 28.6.14. followed by first appeal and Second appeal dated on 2.8.14.
After 3 years, the Commission heard the case and directed the FAA to dispose the case in
terms of providing the information. The
information provided by the PIO on
1.9.17 after direction of First Appellate Authority is as follows
the information on 28.6.14. followed by first appeal and Second appeal dated on 2.8.14.
After 3 years, the Commission heard the case and directed the FAA to dispose the case in
terms of providing the information. The
information provided by the PIO on
1.9.17 after direction of First Appellate Authority is as follows
1.
During the period ,
2009-14, as many as 13 cases were
registered against All India Services Officers, 134 cases against OAS officers and 220 cases
against other Class-I officers. On
completion of investigation, samnction for prosecution was sought
for from Govt. in 217 cases, out
of which , sanction was refused by the
State Govt. against 24 cases.
During the period ,
2009-14, as many as 13 cases were
registered against All India Services Officers, 134 cases against OAS officers and 220 cases
against other Class-I officers. On
completion of investigation, samnction for prosecution was sought
for from Govt. in 217 cases, out
of which , sanction was refused by the
State Govt. against 24 cases.
2.
During the said period, 282
cases were charge-sheeted and 171 cases were pending for investigation.
During the said period, 282
cases were charge-sheeted and 171 cases were pending for investigation.
3.
145 cases were registered on the information of public relating to
corruption and irregularities.
145 cases were registered on the information of public relating to
corruption and irregularities.
4.
359 cases were registered by Vigilance
on its own information.
359 cases were registered by Vigilance
on its own information.
5.
In case of report received on the allegation of demand of illegal
gratification by any public servant, a vigilance case is registered for investigation and a copy of FIR is given
to the complainant under
acknowledgement for his information.
In case of report received on the allegation of demand of illegal
gratification by any public servant, a vigilance case is registered for investigation and a copy of FIR is given
to the complainant under
acknowledgement for his information.
6.
In case of complaint received on corruption or possession of
disproportionate assets by public servants, a secret verification is made
by one vigilance officer. After special verification, either the matter is referred to concerend Department of Govt. for taking appropriate action
or closed, if the allegation is not substantiated. If there is any material evidence to go further into the allegation, a regular
Open Enquiry is ordered to be conducted
against the suspect officials
obtaining prior approval from the
Competent authority. The Enquiring officer suggests either for such action or RDA or registration of a Criminal
case depending upon the material evidence. Thereafter, Final
Form is submitted to the competent court after obtaining sanction orders
against the accused persions from the competent authority, if prima-facie
evidence is made out.
In case of complaint received on corruption or possession of
disproportionate assets by public servants, a secret verification is made
by one vigilance officer. After special verification, either the matter is referred to concerend Department of Govt. for taking appropriate action
or closed, if the allegation is not substantiated. If there is any material evidence to go further into the allegation, a regular
Open Enquiry is ordered to be conducted
against the suspect officials
obtaining prior approval from the
Competent authority. The Enquiring officer suggests either for such action or RDA or registration of a Criminal
case depending upon the material evidence. Thereafter, Final
Form is submitted to the competent court after obtaining sanction orders
against the accused persions from the competent authority, if prima-facie
evidence is made out.
7.
There is no statutory time
limit for completion of verification/enquiry/investigation.
There is no statutory time
limit for completion of verification/enquiry/investigation.
8.
There is no procedure to
inform a private person , who
lodged complaint about the development
of investigation, except informing him
about the result of investigation on the date of submission of
final form to the court, if the case
would have been registered on his report.
There is no procedure to
inform a private person , who
lodged complaint about the development
of investigation, except informing him
about the result of investigation on the date of submission of
final form to the court, if the case
would have been registered on his report.
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date- 9.9.17
