Skip to content

DEALING VIG CASES C and D

August 13, 2010

Sub: Procedure for dealing with DAR cases against group
‘C’ and ‘D’ staff arising out of vigilance investigation.
********

RBV No 13/2006
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRYOF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD

No. 2006/V-1/Meet/6/1 New Delhi, dated: July 19, 2006
It has come to the notice of Railway Board that there is inordinate delay
in giving vigilance clearance/ furnishing vigilance position by some of the
Vigilance units on account of either not following the existing instructions or not interpreting the same correctly. This adversely affects the staff and delays their promotion.
2.0 The existing instructions for dealing with disciplinary proceedings and
vigilance clearance have been considered and it has been decided that, in
supersession of all previous instructions, on the subject, the procedure
given below will henceforth be followed for dealing with DAR cases and
vigilance clearance of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ staff:-

2.1 Cases involving Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ staff only (i.e. not
involving any Gazetted Officer).
In these cases CVC advice is not required. These cases which are also
known as Non-CVC cases be dealt as under:-
2.1.1 In minor penalty cases, vigilance clearance for a particular case would
be given once the Disciplinary Authority (DA) has finalized the DAR action
and a punishment notice (NIP) had been issued. No consultation is necessary with Vigilance even if DA differs with the first stage advice of vigilance organization and penalty imposed is at variance with Vigilance advice or DA exonerates the charged official. DA is only required to send a copy of NIP/ exoneration advice along with its speaking order and reasons of disagreement to Vigilance promptly, say within a week. In the cases of deviation, Vigilance can seek a revision by referring the case to Revising authority (RA) if considered necessary. Such revision would, however, not come in the way of vigilance clearance of staff.
2.1.2 For major penalty cases, the vigilance case will get closed once the DA
has imposed any of the major penalties and sends copy of NIP along with its
speaking order to Vigilance Organisation. No consultation with Vigilance is
necessary where DA intends to impose penalty in accordance with first stage of Vigilance Organisation. However, where punishment is not considered
adequate, the vigilance organization can later seek a revision by referring the case to RA as per extant procedure. Such revision would, however, not come in the way of vigilance clearance of staff.
2.1.3 For major penalty cases, where DA proposes to exonerate or impose a
minor penalty, consultation with vigilance would be necessary. In such cases, DA has to first record his provisional views and consult Vigilance organization once giving reasons for disagreement with Vigilance advice. Vigilance Organisation should examine and furnish their comments to DA on such references. Normally vigilance organization is expected to furnish their comments to DA within two weeks of receipt of such references. Even if after this consultation, DA is not in agreement with views of Vigilance, then DA is free to proceed and pass speaking order for exoneration/imposition of penalty.
Copy of the NIP/ exoneration advice is required to be promptly sent by DA to Vigilance along with its speaking order and reasons of disagreement within a week of passing such orders. Vigilance organisation may seek a revision by referring the case to RA, if considered necessary. However, such a revision would not come in the way of vigilance clearance of staff
2.1.4 The procedure for consultation with Vigilance once as described in Para 2.1.3 would also be applicable in major penalty cases when appellate/ revising authority proposes to exonerate or impose a minor penalty.
2.1.5 Procedure as described in Paras 2.1.1. to 2.1.4 above would also be
applicable for the cases investigated by Board Vigilance. However, in cases of disagreement of DA/Appellate Authority/RA, Zonal Railway Vigilance has to send case to Board Vigilance along with their comments for consultation.
2.1.6 SDGM/CVO may put up details of cases where penalty imposed by
DA/AA/RA is either at variance with vigilance advice or considered
inadequate to General Manager, once every quarter, for his information
endorsing a copy to A.M.(Vig.), Railway Board.
2.2 Composite cases involving Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ staff along with
Group ‘A’ officer(s) or Group ‘B’ officer(s) working in senior scale
(also called CVC composite cases).
2.2.1 In minor penalty cases, no consultation with Vigilance/CVC is necessary if punishment proposed to be imposed by DA is in line with CVC advice. However, in cases of deviation, case is required to be sent to CVC for
reconsideration along with provisional views of DA and Vigilance comments thereon. Vigilance Units should promptly (say within two weeks) send the cases to Board Vigilance for seeking CVC’ s reconsidered advice. DA is however, free to pass speaking order and issue NIP if he is still not in
agreement with CVC’ s reconsidered advice. Copy of this NIP alongwith
reasons of his disagreement should be promptly sent to Vigilance for onward transmission to CVC. CVC can include this case in its Annual Report that is submitted to Parliament and can be discussed by Hon’ ble. MPs.
2.2.2 In major penalty cases, all cases are required to be referred to CVC for
second stage advice after completion of Inquiry along with IO’ s report,
provisional views of DA and Vigilance comments. Vigilance case is closed
once DA imposes penalty in accordance with CVC’ s second stage advice and
furnishes a copy of NIP to Vigilance for onward submission to CVC.
However, if DA differs with CVC’ s second stage advice, case is again
required to be referred to CVC for reconsideration along with reasons for
disagreement by DA and Vigilance comments. If DA still differs with CVC’ s

reconsidered second stage advice, he can pass speaking orders and issue NIP. A copy of NIP along with reasons of disagreement is required to be sent to Board Vigilance for onward submission to CVC. CVC can include this case in its Annual report that is submitted to Parliament and can be discussed by Hon’ ble MPs.
2.2.3 The procedure for consultation with CVC once as described in Paras
2.2.1 & 2.2.2 would be applicable when appellate/ revisionary authority
proposes to deviate from CVC’ s advice.
2.3 Composite cases involving Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ staff alongwith
Group ‘B’ officer(s).
2.3.1 Same procedure as prescribed for CVC composite cases detailed in Para 2.2 above would be applicable except that the case would be decided at the level of AM(Vig) and would not be referred to CVC.
3.0 In the light of above instructions, there should not be any difficulty in
dealing with DAR cases expeditiously. Vigilance organisation will only furnish the current vigilance position about the employee to the executive branch, which has to take decision about promotion/ deputation/ training etc of the employee in accordance with the extant instructions. There should, therefore, be no reason for delay in furnishing vigilance position by the Vigilance organisation.
4.0 Efforts should also be made by Vigilance organisation to computerise
their vigilance clearance module to enable furnishing vigilance position reports promptly. This computerisation should be completed within six months and report furnished to Railway Board.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: