Vigilance Report
The observation for enhancing efficiency of the State Vigilance Commission, as pointed by firebrand Opposition MLA O Joy, who was all praise for the annual report, 2009 of the Commission when it was tabled for discussion on the last day of the Assembly session on March 11, we feel should not end there itself. Every year when the annual report of the Commission is tabled in the Assembly, there have always been some serious discussion on the recommendations of the report. However, it was not so this time as the report was tabled only on the last day of the Assembly session due to be prorogued sine die. Still there is the need for thorough deliberation on the new observations that may have been come up in the report and the recommendations for initiating necessary actions by the Government thereof or better still to see whether any of the past recommendations have been implemented or not. Otherwise, the very purpose of setting up a Vigilance Commission and pumping huge amount of fund to ensure its functioning, is defeated. In the first place, it should not be forgotten that the Vigilance Commission has been set up as a watchdog to enhance the administrative affairs of the State. So it would be only waste of time, money and energy if the recommendations and the observations of the Commission are thrown into the air. This would also have a direct impact on the moral of the staff in the Commission who would surely think over before investigating against any corrupt officials if the Government is not going to act on their recommendations, lest they be victimised.
As a matter of fact, the Vigilance Commission has always maintained that officials involving in financial scam and indicted in corruption charges of looting the public fund should not continue in Government services. But it is sad that we have never come across nor heard about translation of the related recommendations of the Commission into action by the Government. As in the past, the Commission has stressed on the urgency of opening up Vigilance Cell, more particularly in Departments that are notorious for corrupt practices. We are more than sure that the matter had been discussed by the Government over and over again. But, as the proposal has never been implemented, the Commission has underlined the need for setting up the Vigilance Cell this time too. In the absence of a proper mechanism to stop corruption in the administrative affairs of the State, the grip of the vice is bound to remain tighten up here for long. On the other hand, an important observation, whose significance would be known to any Tom, Harry or Dick even without the prompting of the Vigilance Commission is that the Heads of the Departments concerned should frequently check and monitor the ongoing activities in his/her Departments. After all, among other responsibilities as the Head of the Department, the officers should be better equipped to understand the work culture and the conduct of his/her sub-ordinate staff. As long as the Heads of Department give scant regard to this aspect of his/her official duty and the Government fails to act against such delinquent officers, no amount of recommendations from the Vigilance Commission would be able to make any difference to the administration. Whether it is in the CAG report or the Vigilance Report, what is more important is to act on the recommendations and not to stash them in cold storage. Only then, the public would start reposing their trust on the Government and the Vigilance Commission would be able to function more efficiently.