Time limit for action against corrupt officials

(b) if so, the details of the circular issued by Department of Personnel and Training;

(c) whether Government has received complaints against Chairman & Managing Directors (CMDs) of several PSUs; and

(d) if so, the names of CMDs of PSUs against whom complaints of corrupt practices have been received?

(a) to (d): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

The Said Statement is detailed below:

(a) & (b): The Supreme Court of India, vide its judgment dated 18th December, 1997 in the case of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India, directed that “time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG) or any Law Officer in the AG’s office”.

The delay which occurs in the sanctioning of prosecution is mostly on account of detailed scrutiny and analysis of voluminous case records and evidence, consultation with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), State Governments and other agencies, and sometimes non-availability of relevant documentary evidence.

However, in order to check delays in grant of sanction for prosecution, the Department of Personnel & Training has already issued guidelines vide its OM No.399/33/2006-AVD-III dated 6th November, 2006 followed by another OM dated 20th December, 2006, providing for a definite time frame at each stage for handling of requests from CBI for prosecution of public servants.

The Group of Ministers (GoM) on tackling corruption, in its first report, had also given certain recommendations for speedy disposal of requests for sanction of prosecution of public servants, which included – taking decision on such cases within 3 months; monitoring of such cases at the level of Secretary of the Ministry/Department and submission of report to the Cabinet Secretary; and in cases of refusal to accord sanction, submission of a report to the next higher authority within 7 days for information (where competent authority is Minister, such report is to be submitted to the Prime Minister). The said recommendation of the GoM has been accepted by Government and instructions have been issued by the Government on 3rd May, 2012.

The GoM has also recommended that (a) requests for prior approval under section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 shall be decided by the competent authority within three months of receipt of request; (b) the competent authority will give a Speaking Order, giving reasons for its decisions; and (c) in the event a decision is taken to refuse permission, the reasons thereof shall also be put up to the next higher authority (Prime Minister) for information within one week of taking the decision. The recommendation of the GOM has been accepted and orders have been issued by DoP&T on 26th September, 2011.

(c) & (d): A Group of Officers (GoO) was constituted to take a view on complaints against Chief Executives and Functional Directors of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) and Chairman and Managing Directors (CMDs) and Functional Directors of Public Sector banks and Financial Institutions vide Department of Public Enterprises O.M. No. 15(1)/2010-DPE(GM) dated 11.3.2010 and 11.05.2011 under the chairmanship of Secretary (Coordination and Public Grievance), Cabinet Secretariat, which has received complaints against CMDs of several PSU. The list containing the names of CMDs of PSUs against whom complaints have been received is at Annexure.