Central Vigilance Commission launches new definition of Vigilance Angle for PSU Bank Employees

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has released new definition of Vigilance Angle for Public Sector Bank Employees. There are certain categories of misconducts, where existence of vigilance angle becomes quite clear. Vigilance angle would be obvious in following misconducts on the part of an official:

• Demanding and/or accepting gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act or for using his influence with any other official.
• Obtaining valuable thing, without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person with whom he has or likely to have official dealings or his subordinates have official dealings or where he can exert influence.
• Obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant.
• Possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
• Cases of misappropriation, forgery or cheating or other similar criminal offences.

There are, however, other irregularities where circumstances will have to be weighed carefully to take a view whether the official’s integrity is in doubt. Gross or willful negligence; recklessness in decision making; blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of discretion in excess where no ostensible public interest is evident; failure to keep the controlling authority/superiors informed in time, any undue / unjustified delay in disposal of a case, are some of the irregularities where the Disciplinary Authority with the help of the CVO should carefully study the case, consider all relevant factors and weigh the circumstances to come to a conclusion whether there is reasonable ground to doubt the integrity of the official concerned.

In addition to these misconducts, there are certain acts specific to Public Sector Banks, which may have an identifiable vigilance angle. Some of such misconducts are listed below:-

1. Irregularities in opening of accounts leading to the creation of fictitious accounts.
2. Recurrent instances of sanction of Overdrafts (ODs) in excess of discretionary powers / sanctioned limits without reporting.
3. Frequent instances of accommodations granted to a party against norms e.g., discounting bills against bogus Motor Transport Receipts (MTRs); purchase of bills when bills had earlier been returned unpaid; affording credits against un-cleared effects in the absence of limits and opening Letter of Credits (LCs) when previously opened LCs had devolved;
4. Cases in which there is a reasonable ground to believe that a penal offence has been committed by the alleged official but the evidence forthcoming is not sufficient for prosecution in a court of law e.g., possession of disproportionate assets;
5. Misappropriation of Bank’s property, money or stores;
6. Falsification of Bank’s records;
7. Disclosure of secret or confidential information even though it does not fall strictly within the scope of Bank’s Secrecy issues;
8. False claims on the Bank viz., TA claims, reimbursement claims, etc.
9. Failure to take necessary action to protect the interest of the Bank;
10. Sacrificing / ignoring the interest of the Bank and causing loss to the Bank.

The following actions involving an employee of Public Sector Banks would also come under the purview of vigilance angle, if the employee concerned:

1. has not acted in accordance with rules and his recommendations are not in the interest of the Bank;
2. has failed to conduct himself in such a manner that his decisions or recommendations do not appear to be objective and transparent and seem to be calculated to promote improper gains for himself or for anyone else;
3. has acted in a manner to frustrate or undermine the policies of the Bank or acted against the decisions taken by the management;
4. seems to have complied with unauthorised and unlawful oral instructions of his seniors without bringing them to the notice of the Competent Authority as per extant guidelines;
5. has exceeded his discretionary powers and his actions do not appear justifiable or to serve Bank’s interest;
6. has abused or misused his official position to obtain benefit for himself or for another.

It may be noted that the list of misconducts as indicated above, is only an “illustrative list” and not an exhaustive one. There may be other misconduct by officials of Public Sector Banks which may attract vigilance angle. Therefore, the authorities concerned, including the respective Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Vigilance Officer, should examine a perceived misconduct in the light of broad parameters, as described above, before arriving at a conclusion regarding presence of vigilance angle or otherwise, in that matter.