By U Sudhakar ReddyThe corrupt officials are left scot free with the State government denying the criminal prosecution though the Anti Corruption Bureau has been recommending legal action against those found to have amassed crores of rupees of worth assets and caught red handed taking bribe.
Most of these cases are ending up with minor penalties as part of departmental action preferred by the government instead of allowing ACB to prosecute them in the special courts.
Thanks to the increased political interference and bureaucratic connivance that is allowing the corrupt officials to roam free instead of sending them to the jails.
Under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior sanction of the government is required to prosecute government employees. But increasing political interference and bureaucratic connivance has ensured that corrupt officials go scot-free instead of being held accountable.
Even when prosecution has been allowed, the conviction rate has come down.In 2008, the overall conviction rate in trap, disproportionate assets and criminal misconduct cases was 69 per cent.
In 2009 it is down to around 60 per cent, according to the latest ACB statistics. Of the 106 trap cases, 42 ended in acquittal in 2009. In disproportionate assets cases, two of the six cases disposed of by the courts ended in acquittals. In criminal misconduct cases out of 12 cases brought to the courts, five ended in acquittal. As many as 834 cases of corruption are pending in higher courts.
High Court advocate Mr D. Linga Rao who has filed a public interest litigation against the government for exonerating corrupt senior officials says, "After the ACB conducts raids and registers cases and collects evidence, it seeks permission of the government for prosecution of the erring officials.The government either sits on the files or orders disciplinary action instead of criminal prosecution. In some cases, government orders are issued to drop criminal action. In many instances individuals involved in ACB cases have continued in focal posts.Some of those convicted in corruption are continued in service on the ground that sentence of imprisonment is suspended by an appellate court.
The state government has been delaying prosecution of All India Service officials central government against whom the ACB and CBI have found evidence regarding commission and omission. For instance, the government has dropped disciplinary proceedings against senior officials in the ITI scam while allowing criminal proceedings against junior level staff.
In the Special Protection Force DIG Yesuratnam case, another PIL was filed against the government's decision. Though both the ACB and the Vigilance Commission had written to the government asking for criminal prosecution, the government ordered departmental action.
Usually, when the ACB and vigilance commission both agree on prosecution, the file has to be circulated at the level of the Chief Minister and a representative of the ACB shall sit in the committee meeting that decides on prosecution but in a majority of cases, these procedures are not followed.
The state government is also not pursuing the Central Bureau of Investigation's request for action against IAS officials against whom the agency found fault in the Volkswagen scam. The revenue department and the municipal administration department, particularly the GHMC, which are branded the most corrupt departments are also trying to evade criminal prosecution, ACB officials said.
Legal experts say that such an attitude on the part of the government defeats the very purpose of setting up the ACB.
"We have to point a finger at the general administration department which has been playing a key role in exonerating the key accused involved in corruption cases and scams. There is a selective dropping of criminal prosecution. Regarding conviction, ACB officials should collect evidence, but if the investigator himself is dishonest he suppresses the relevant material evidence which results in acquittal," said Mr Linga Rao. Even vigilance commission reports are not implemented by the state government causing huge losses to the exchequer. In one such case, government employees in Mancherial town have been drawing 20 per cent of HRA instead of 12.5 per cent by producing false certificates related to the distance and allegedly misrepresenting facts before the AP Administrative Tribunal. They claimed that Mancherial town is situated within a radius of 8 kilometres from Ramagundam municipality, when the records show that Ramagundem is 24 km from Mancherial and 21 km for Godavari Khan, so the employees in Mancherial are not eligible for 20 per cent HRA. Dismissal of corrupt officials from service, too, has declined. In 2007, 82 officials were dismissed from service; in 2008 the figure was 57.
However, ACB officials say their conviction rate is far better than that of the state police. "The conviction rate of the CBI in the country was 66.2 per cent in 2008. We are on par with them. Our investigators are following up cases regularly.As there are designated courts for trial of ACB cases, the conviction rate is more when compared to regular cases of crime," said an ACB official. But the ACB has its problems. For one, it is short staffed. "There are more retirements and no new posts are sanctioned.Recently, the special incentive given to ACB staff was reinstated. This has to be increased further to encourage police officials working for ACB," an official said.
Even when prosecution has been allowed, the conviction rate has come down.In 2008, the overall conviction rate in trap, disproportionate assets and criminal misconduct cases was 69 per cent.
In 2009 it is down to around 60 per cent, according to the latest ACB statistics. Of the 106 trap cases, 42 ended in acquittal in 2009. In disproportionate assets cases, two of the six cases disposed of by the courts ended in acquittals. In criminal misconduct cases out of 12 cases brought to the courts, five ended in acquittal. As many as 834 cases of corruption are pending in higher courts.
High Court advocate Mr D. Linga Rao who has filed a public interest litigation against the government for exonerating corrupt senior officials says, "After the ACB conducts raids and registers cases and collects evidence, it seeks permission of the government for prosecution of the erring officials.The government either sits on the files or orders disciplinary action instead of criminal prosecution. In some cases, government orders are issued to drop criminal action. In many instances individuals involved in ACB cases have continued in focal posts.Some of those convicted in corruption are continued in service on the ground that sentence of imprisonment is suspended by an appellate court.
The state government has been delaying prosecution of All India Service officials central government against whom the ACB and CBI have found evidence regarding commission and omission. For instance, the government has dropped disciplinary proceedings against senior officials in the ITI scam while allowing criminal proceedings against junior level staff.
In the Special Protection Force DIG Yesuratnam case, another PIL was filed against the government's decision. Though both the ACB and the Vigilance Commission had written to the government asking for criminal prosecution, the government ordered departmental action.
Usually, when the ACB and vigilance commission both agree on prosecution, the file has to be circulated at the level of the Chief Minister and a representative of the ACB shall sit in the committee meeting that decides on prosecution but in a majority of cases, these procedures are not followed.
The state government is also not pursuing the Central Bureau of Investigation's request for action against IAS officials against whom the agency found fault in the Volkswagen scam. The revenue department and the municipal administration department, particularly the GHMC, which are branded the most corrupt departments are also trying to evade criminal prosecution, ACB officials said.
Legal experts say that such an attitude on the part of the government defeats the very purpose of setting up the ACB.
"We have to point a finger at the general administration department which has been playing a key role in exonerating the key accused involved in corruption cases and scams. There is a selective dropping of criminal prosecution. Regarding conviction, ACB officials should collect evidence, but if the investigator himself is dishonest he suppresses the relevant material evidence which results in acquittal," said Mr Linga Rao. Even vigilance commission reports are not implemented by the state government causing huge losses to the exchequer. In one such case, government employees in Mancherial town have been drawing 20 per cent of HRA instead of 12.5 per cent by producing false certificates related to the distance and allegedly misrepresenting facts before the AP Administrative Tribunal. They claimed that Mancherial town is situated within a radius of 8 kilometres from Ramagundam municipality, when the records show that Ramagundem is 24 km from Mancherial and 21 km for Godavari Khan, so the employees in Mancherial are not eligible for 20 per cent HRA. Dismissal of corrupt officials from service, too, has declined. In 2007, 82 officials were dismissed from service; in 2008 the figure was 57.
However, ACB officials say their conviction rate is far better than that of the state police. "The conviction rate of the CBI in the country was 66.2 per cent in 2008. We are on par with them. Our investigators are following up cases regularly.As there are designated courts for trial of ACB cases, the conviction rate is more when compared to regular cases of crime," said an ACB official. But the ACB has its problems. For one, it is short staffed. "There are more retirements and no new posts are sanctioned.Recently, the special incentive given to ACB staff was reinstated. This has to be increased further to encourage police officials working for ACB," an official said.
No comments:
Post a Comment