news details |
|
|
| Does J&K not need an Institutions like LOKPAL, LOKAYUKTA to operate upon the CORRUPT? | | A look through the mist | | Daya Sagar | 1/19/2012 12:19:04 AM |
|
It was on 29th December
last that PTI quoted
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah as having said that there was no need for special laws like Lokpal in J&K as the State already had such provisions. Omar Abdullah was quoted as having said while addressing a public meeting a Ganderbal that (i) "What Anna Hazare is demanding today, our state has already enacted such laws long back," (ii) "Jammu and Kashmir was the first state in the country which had implemented the Public Services Guarantee Act,In case, the officers of these departments fail to provide service to the people in a time-bound manner, they become liable to cash penalties which will be deducted from their salaries," (iii) "The Accountability Commission was also functioning in the state"
Omar Abdullah so easily ventured to profess that J&K does not an institution like LOKPAL since this state already has laws / institutions to like that. No doubt it is true that J&K does have some institutions and laws to deal with the Corrupt. But can Omar sahib say with full faith and honesty that J&K State Accountability Commission and State Vigilance Organisation ( 2011) have been able to create any impact worth taking notice for punishing and controlling the Corrupt order ? J&K State Vigilance Commission ( 2011) has not been able to even start the work, one year has nearly passed ? The J&K State Accountability Commission was only incurring expenditure on its establishment after April 2008 for three years till in 2011 it was given a Chairman. Before that also it had worked for years with only a acting Chairman.
The working of J&K Vigilance Organisation or J&K State Accountability Commission has not earned any appreciable acknowledgements from the general public and what ever half done recommendations for actions against the corrupt have atall been made by these organizations , even that have not been well executed by the Government, what to talk of making any improvement in the working of these institutions.
The State Accountability Commission Act provides for completion of enquiries / recommendation within six months but SAC remained headless for 3 years after April 2008.The complainants had been just incurring expenditure of time and money by paying visits.
Omar Abdullah had told the JK Assembly on 18 Mar 2010 that for curbing corruption his Government was contemplating for earmarking the areas of jurisdictions of Accountability Commission and the Vigilance Organization in a better way. "While Accountability Commission will look into the complaints against political leaders , the Vigilance Organization will deal with the cases of Government functionaries. We are also contemplating to convert the Vigilance Organization into a Commission giving it more teeth". In response to a cut motion by PDP member Peerzada Mansoor Hussain he had informed that 343 cases of corruption had been registered against government officials by State Vigilance Organisation from 1/1/ 2005 to 31/12// 2009. Officials caught red-handed while accepting bribe were 175 . But the Chief Minister did not inform that how many had been dismissed from service, how many had been imprisoned and property of how many had been confiscated. Just a few days after that it was reported in media that a senior government officer had been booked for alleged corrupt act in a case where the mats were to be procured for the dust laden class rooms of government schools. This case had come light much earlier and the concerned IAS officer had been getting the regular time promotions even after that. The Jammu and Kashmir State Accountability Commission had sent recommendations for severest action against some government officers - even for termination of services, forfeiture of retirement pension under Rule 30 of the J&K Civil Services - as back as 2007. But no immediate action, worth appreciation, was taken by the government. Some of the accused approached the J&K HC against recommendations of SAC. But no follow up worth appreciation appears to have been done by the government to get the notices attended / vacated even upto ending 2011 ( In case any action had been taken that should have been brought before the public so that the culprits were exposed publically and deterrent signals could reach the other corrupt practitioners ) one thing surely has happened after 2008 with regard to SAC.
The complaints against government officers will not be now handled by State Accountability Commission. Earlier the 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" does not figure that pointedly in the JAMMU AND KASHMlR STATE VIGILANCE COMMISSION ACT, 2011.
Surely it would provide some relief to the corrupt Government Officers. Although SAC has not been able to dig its teeth deep into the corrupt veins but surely complaints before SAC did create some worries for the corrupt government servants. State Vigilance Organisation could not do. It is also being alleged by some that the government officers are instrumental in cultivating the idea of an Act like J&K State Vigilance Commission Act after which J&K State Accountability Commission would not deal with complaints of non performance and corrupt practices against Government Servants.
Therefore, J&K Government need to consider including willful neglect and non performance of duties in the scope of the definition of the Corrupt Act in SVC Act 2011.
The public service delivery order is yet to be tested for its delivery. The Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill 2011 ( Bill No: 134 - C 2011 passed by Lok Sabha with simple majority on 27 December 2011) That was tbled in LOK SABHA on 23 December 2011 for discussions did have the provision for the Institution of Lokayukta in the States as well. MANY questions could be raised on the contents of the bill but the provision for Lokayukta was surely out of truthful intentions.In the Bill it is laid down that that the proposed Lokayukta would be applicable to all States ( including J&K ). No doubt it has laso been laid down that the choice is left to the States to adopt this bill or have there own (better) bill. States who still have a better draft for institution like Lokayukta are not debarred from laying their choice. But in LOK Sabha and Rajay Sabha the MPs discussed very very less of the virus of Corruption and instead unfair race was set amongst the UPA partners and supporters to drag in the issue of reservations for the minorities ( Muslims in particular).
Mohd Shafi (NC) supported the LOKPAL LOKAYUKTA Bill in Rajay Sabha on 29th Dec in a very typical style and tried to make Art 370 also a issue there. The manner in which Ram Vilas Paswan jee dragged in the discussions the subjects of religions and castes would surely make any considering mind to wonder whether Ram Vilas Paswan jee was really such a senior parliamentarian. The purpose of making such brief references here is that from no where these days any hopes are emerging that those in power seats have any immediate intentions for putting in place any effective institution and law that could effectively rein the CORRUPT ORDER .No doubt it is a bitter reality that corruption can not be totally removed from any society, but the rule of the CORRUPT can surely be dismantled and that is what is being asked for. When the issue before us is of corruption and MPs / Those in power seat start talking of Reservations and Center State relations, it is what natural that questions would be raised on the INTENTIONs.
Omar Sahib do we still do not need an Institution like LOKPAL?
Daya Sagar is a Sr coloumnist of Kashmir affairs and a social activist [email protected] 9419796096) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
