news details |
|
|
| THE J&K STATE VIGILANCE COMMISSION ACT, 2011 need serious REVIEW | | No in service Government Officer should be appointed as Chief Vigilance Commissioner | | Daya Sagar | 5/26/2011 10:20:30 PM |
| J&K State Vigilance Commission was Constituted vide notification SRO 59 dated 15th February, 2011. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner and two Vigilance Commissioners have not been appointed yet since before the CVC and VCs could be appointed some questions were raised on the provisions as were laid down in the Act. A good number of the Sections of the Act were debated in the media and at other forums by the civil society , NGOs and some opinion makers. The criteria / qualifications kept for appointment of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Vigilance Commissioner and the appointing authority as well as terms of appointment were particularly questioned. Demands were even made that since J&K State Accountability Commission has not been able to deliver effectively , even the scope of operations of the SAC has been reduced with the passing of the SVC Act in 2011 , exiting Vigilance Organisation too has under question with the coming of SVC Act , Government should retain a committee including some members from civil society to examine and draft amendments to the SVC 2011. J&K Chief Minister did pay attention to the questions and suggestions and was kind enough to consider some amendments. Though constitution of a redrafting committee involving the civil society has not been accepted , government has drawn out some amendments for issue of amendment through an ordinance . the draft amendments were put for public suggestions vide Notice No: Vide GAD/VIG/5/ADM/2010 dated 28 April 2010 issued by Commissioner / Secretary GAD . In the draft amendments surely some useful amendments have been listed . But still a lot needs to be done. In case Government is not inclined to constitute a Drafting Committee for general review and wants to put into practice the SVC without any loss of time , let the government atleast consider some more amendments needed in Sub Sections 3 & 4 of Section 3 of the Act to make the Act truthfully effective and other amendments could worked out later on.
Sub Sections 3 and 4 of the Section -3 of the SVC Act of 2011 may hence be merged ( as has already been done in the notified draft amendment) but should be amended as ::::
“ The Chief Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners shall be appointed from amongst persons who have been in All-India Service or in any civil service of the State or in a civil post under the State having knowledge and experience in the matters relating to vigilance, law, finance, policy making and administration including police administration."; provided further that the person should have retired from regular government service not less than one year before the date the process of selection is initiated” “ Provided further that persons from services / lawyers / Judiciary / private sector where exceptional suitability could be assessed by the committee., too could be considered”.
No doubt the Government has made sincere efforts for making / harmonizing provisions of SVC Act with the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. But there may be some lacunae / deficiencies also in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and we expect that Government of Hon’ble Omar Abdullah would seize this opportunity to make the J&K SVC Act more effective and adequately fitting to the administrative / political environment that we have today.
So, there are also some other areas that need to be attended to. Willful neglect and non performance of duties be also included in the scope of the definition of the Corrupt Act.. Earlier the public servants / government servants could be questioned even for non performance of their duties before the State Accountability Commission ( Section-10 “ covering mal administration..) . But this” default” do not figure that pointedly in the JAMMU AND KASHMlR STATE VIGILANCE COMMISSION ACT, 2011
Since there would also be a Vigilance Organisation headed by a Director Vigilance. ( particular attention is drawn to Section-23 of SVC Act 2011 ( Amendment to Section -2 and Section 10 &11 of Acl No XIII of Samvat 2006 ).. As per SVC Act 2011 Director Vigilance would be an officer from services not less than the rank of an IGP. The Chief Secretary J&K Government is also a civil / public servant and has to be under the jurisdiction of SVC. So, the “qualifications” and status of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner / as well as the Vigilance Commissioners needs a must review.. The amendment to the SVC Section -3 as proposed above has been made keeping inview these requirements as well. In case the Chief VC / VC are picked from retired government servants looking more at their unblemished service career and capabilities , their official level while in active service shall not raise the questions of seniority like it happens for in service candidate. A retired Army Captain on the basis of his capabilities could reach parliament and boss even the working Army Chief.
No doubt in view of the “circumstances” and government service norms as they prevail today, only the IAS / IPS officers move to the highest administrative service ranks and the experience criteria mentioned in the Act / draft amendments would in general go in favour of the IAS /IPS officer candidates for consideration. So the provision that the candidates for appointment could be in service candidates or retired officers need review. It has also to be kept in view that a in service government officer when appointed would get a service benefit of extension in service upto 65 years of age ( in case retirement age is raised to 62 years by GOI) and hence there could be cases where to get such appointment some officers may try to win favours of political bosses.. Hence (a) No in service government officer would be appointed as Chief Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner.(b) persons to be appointed there if selected out of the IAS / IPS /IRS / IFS / Civil servants / PSU officers / Government servants , it should be ensured that the person should have retired not less than one year before the date the process of selection is initiated (c) it would be worthwhile to also include for consideration persons from services / lawyers / Judiciary / private sector where exceptional suitability could be assessed by the committee. (d) reconsideration of the jurisdiction of the State Vigilance Commission as regards its involvement /Authority ( including administrative / superintendence ) in/ over the appointment of Director Vigilance Organisation (e) keeping in view the provisions / authority of THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS' PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (COMMISS ION) ACT, 1962. ACT No. XI OF 1962 had, the SVC Act 2011 should have more administrative and legal strength than the Prevention of Corruption Act 1962 but it is not so (e) need for constituting a drafting committee is more pressing keeping in view (i) the seriousness of the issue keeping in view the questions being raised even on the performance and integrity of some members of prime services like IAS /IPS (ii) inspite of the best efforts of the government the present Vigilance Organization that came into existence in 1983 has not been able to deliver results in a convincing manner (iii).even the State Accountability Commission has not been able to successfully perform and get implemented its recommendations, may be procedural limitations
Daya Sagar is a Sr coloumnist of Kashmir affairs and a social activist [email protected] 9419796096)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
