<p>The Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked the anti-graft watchdog Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to fix a time limit for disposing of complaints at all levels, indicating greater urgency by institutions over corruption issues.<br /><br /></p>.<p>While hearing the plea of RTI applicant S S Chawla, Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra observed that due to the “lack of time frame to take action”, the Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of various departments take complaints very lightly often resulting in inaction.<br /><br />“After carefully considering the facts of the case, one thing emerges that the lack of any time limit for disposal of complaints, whether endorsed with the direction to investigate or to take further necessary action, results in the complaints taken very lightly by the CVO concerned without often reaching any decisive action,” Mishra said.<br /><br />In his RTI application, Chawla had sought to know the action taken on a complaint filed against a PSU. During the hearing, Chawla had alleged that by not binding the CVOs of departments to complete an inquiry and take action within fixed time limit, “the CVC was, in a sense, encouraging corruption rather than curbing it”.<br /><br />The officials from the anti-corruption watchdog said CVC fixes timeline only in respect of complaints that required investigation or in cases of disciplinary and departmental proceedings.<br /><br />Also, of the numerous complaints received by the anti-graft body, the competent authority decides which of them should be probed into and which should be forwarded to the CVO of the respective public authority for further actions.<br /><br />In case of all those references which the CVC forwards for further actions, time limit doesn’t apply to the vigilance officers of government departments.<br /><br />In this regard, while observing that since the number of complaints received by Central Vigilance Commission is quite high, there is always a possibility that even some serious complaints may be forwarded to the CVO concerned not for investigation but for “necessary action” which may leave them pending indefinitely, Mishra said.<br /><br />“We would expect the CPIO to bring this to the notice of the CVC for taking a fresh look at the complaint handling policy and to evolve clear time lines, wherever possible, for disposing of complaints at all levels," Mishra said in his order.</p>
<p>The Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked the anti-graft watchdog Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to fix a time limit for disposing of complaints at all levels, indicating greater urgency by institutions over corruption issues.<br /><br /></p>.<p>While hearing the plea of RTI applicant S S Chawla, Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra observed that due to the “lack of time frame to take action”, the Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of various departments take complaints very lightly often resulting in inaction.<br /><br />“After carefully considering the facts of the case, one thing emerges that the lack of any time limit for disposal of complaints, whether endorsed with the direction to investigate or to take further necessary action, results in the complaints taken very lightly by the CVO concerned without often reaching any decisive action,” Mishra said.<br /><br />In his RTI application, Chawla had sought to know the action taken on a complaint filed against a PSU. During the hearing, Chawla had alleged that by not binding the CVOs of departments to complete an inquiry and take action within fixed time limit, “the CVC was, in a sense, encouraging corruption rather than curbing it”.<br /><br />The officials from the anti-corruption watchdog said CVC fixes timeline only in respect of complaints that required investigation or in cases of disciplinary and departmental proceedings.<br /><br />Also, of the numerous complaints received by the anti-graft body, the competent authority decides which of them should be probed into and which should be forwarded to the CVO of the respective public authority for further actions.<br /><br />In case of all those references which the CVC forwards for further actions, time limit doesn’t apply to the vigilance officers of government departments.<br /><br />In this regard, while observing that since the number of complaints received by Central Vigilance Commission is quite high, there is always a possibility that even some serious complaints may be forwarded to the CVO concerned not for investigation but for “necessary action” which may leave them pending indefinitely, Mishra said.<br /><br />“We would expect the CPIO to bring this to the notice of the CVC for taking a fresh look at the complaint handling policy and to evolve clear time lines, wherever possible, for disposing of complaints at all levels," Mishra said in his order.</p>
