A Madras High Court order on January 5 has landed the Central Vigilance Commission in such a spot that its chief P Shankar is talking about ‘‘winding up and going home.’’
The January 5 judgement by Justice Shivasubramanyam was on a writ petition filed by the All India Union Bank Officers Federation challenging the supervisory role of the CVC in cases of official misconduct. It says the CVC’s advice on evidence, proof and punishment shall be ignored and is not binding on the authorities.
The order reads, ‘‘Any advice or opinion to be sought from the CVC can be only on procedural matters and if any advice is given in the matter of appreciation of evidence, proof of charges, or the quantum of punishment, such advice shall be ignored and not be binding on the disciplinary authority (the concerned Government office). Any regulation to the contrary will be wholly without jurisdiction and inoperative.’’
Story continues below this ad
Shankar apprehends the order will have all-India repercussions. ‘‘If the CVC’s advice can be ignored, then there is no need for consultations any more,’’ he says.
‘‘This ruling questions the basic fibre of the CVC’s existence which which it has been operating since 1964. Till this order is remedied it remains law and with it, our supervisory role vanishes in one stroke.’’
After receiving a certified copy of the order, a meeting was held in the CVC.
Another round of consultations will be held with legal experts before the CVC decides on an appeal. ‘‘If nothing is done, then the CVC may as well cease to exist. We are aware that the CVC’s advice is not binding on the discipilinary authority but it is meant to act as a counter-pressure so that the right action is taken against errant officers,’’ Shankar says.
Story continues below this ad
Every year, the CVC processes and gives advice (in two stages) for around 3,000 vigilance cases.