The Hindu: Chennai: Sunday,
20 October 2024.
An RTI query by R. Karthikeyan revealed that out of 21,660 petitions received by the agency from January 1, 2023 to June 1, 2024, only 45 petitions were taken up for preliminary inquiry, nine reached detailed-inquiry stage, two turned regular cases
The Directorate of Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has received 21,660 petitions from the public in the
last one and half years January 1, 2023 to June 1, 2024.
Out of them, only 45 petitions were taken up for preliminary inquiry, according to a reply obtained by a Right to Information Act (RTI) activist, R. Karthikeyan.
DVAC investigates cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and its 2018 amendment against public servants, and employees of public sector undertakings, Corporations and local bodies owned or controlled by the State government.
The agency handles cases by conducting surprise checks in government offices, initiating vigilance reports on corrupt practices, conducting preliminary inquiry, detailed inquiry and regular case registration of FIR and investigation based on complaints/petitions received from the public.
Out of the 21,660 petitions received in the last one and half years, nine were converted into detailed inquiry. Only two petitions were converted into regular cases, said the RTI reply given to Mr. Karthikeyan.
It added that 145 cases ended in conviction and 56 in acquittal during the period. In the 56 cases, appeals were filed in six.
“Less than 1% of the petitions have been taken up for preliminary inquiry. Average time needed for a petition to be reduced to FIR is 1.5 years, as per the Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction protocols. Section 17A of the Act protects public servants from frivolous investigations and calls for prior approval from a competent authority for any police investigation into a public servant’s alleged offence. A police officer must seek prior approval from a competent authority before conducting an investigation into a public servant’s alleged offence,” said Mr. Karthikeyan.
However, DVAC sources said all petitions received from the public are duly scrutinised and categorised by officers. “All the petitions received are not genuinely on corrupt activities; They may be frivolous in nature. Petitions may be anonymous and pseudonymous from anonymous petition a person cannot be identified, while in a pseudonymous petition, a person is identified by a different name or term,” said an officer.
“Many do not have names or contact numbers. In such cases, it is very difficult for us to proceed further. In other instances, people send copies of the petitions that were sent to other departments or offices of heads. Such petitions are in no way connected to corruption ends up here, though we can handle those relating to corruption only. In a few cases, petitions are sent based on mere allegations due to certain rivalry without any substantiation, or due to matrimonial or promotion disputes,” he explained further.
DVAC officials said all the petitions are duly categorised. If any element of corruption is made out as per the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, such a petition is duly sent to the head of department concerned for further course of action.
Then preliminary and detailed inquiry are duly conducted, and prior approval is obtained from the competent authority before registration of case. In such cases, the petitioner is intimated about the status of the case by the officers, officials said.
An RTI query by R. Karthikeyan revealed that out of 21,660 petitions received by the agency from January 1, 2023 to June 1, 2024, only 45 petitions were taken up for preliminary inquiry, nine reached detailed-inquiry stage, two turned regular cases
Out of them, only 45 petitions were taken up for preliminary inquiry, according to a reply obtained by a Right to Information Act (RTI) activist, R. Karthikeyan.
DVAC investigates cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and its 2018 amendment against public servants, and employees of public sector undertakings, Corporations and local bodies owned or controlled by the State government.
The agency handles cases by conducting surprise checks in government offices, initiating vigilance reports on corrupt practices, conducting preliminary inquiry, detailed inquiry and regular case registration of FIR and investigation based on complaints/petitions received from the public.
Out of the 21,660 petitions received in the last one and half years, nine were converted into detailed inquiry. Only two petitions were converted into regular cases, said the RTI reply given to Mr. Karthikeyan.
It added that 145 cases ended in conviction and 56 in acquittal during the period. In the 56 cases, appeals were filed in six.
“Less than 1% of the petitions have been taken up for preliminary inquiry. Average time needed for a petition to be reduced to FIR is 1.5 years, as per the Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction protocols. Section 17A of the Act protects public servants from frivolous investigations and calls for prior approval from a competent authority for any police investigation into a public servant’s alleged offence. A police officer must seek prior approval from a competent authority before conducting an investigation into a public servant’s alleged offence,” said Mr. Karthikeyan.
However, DVAC sources said all petitions received from the public are duly scrutinised and categorised by officers. “All the petitions received are not genuinely on corrupt activities; They may be frivolous in nature. Petitions may be anonymous and pseudonymous from anonymous petition a person cannot be identified, while in a pseudonymous petition, a person is identified by a different name or term,” said an officer.
“Many do not have names or contact numbers. In such cases, it is very difficult for us to proceed further. In other instances, people send copies of the petitions that were sent to other departments or offices of heads. Such petitions are in no way connected to corruption ends up here, though we can handle those relating to corruption only. In a few cases, petitions are sent based on mere allegations due to certain rivalry without any substantiation, or due to matrimonial or promotion disputes,” he explained further.
DVAC officials said all the petitions are duly categorised. If any element of corruption is made out as per the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, such a petition is duly sent to the head of department concerned for further course of action.
Then preliminary and detailed inquiry are duly conducted, and prior approval is obtained from the competent authority before registration of case. In such cases, the petitioner is intimated about the status of the case by the officers, officials said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
