'Depts should not initiate disciplinary actions against corrupt officials, cases should be handed over to tribunal'; Vigilance Tribunals write to Chief Secretary

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Vigilance Tribunals have written to the Chief Secretary stating that respective departments should not initiate disciplinary action against corrupt gazetted officers themselves, but should instead hand them over to the tribunals for trial. This comes after a remark by the High Court questioning whether Vigilance Tribunals should continue functioning, as only a small number of cases are being referred to them.

At present, cases are being suppressed or resolved with lenient actions via departmental probes rather than being referred to the tribunal. These procedural delays effectively allow corrupt officials to reach retirement without facing serious consequences.

There are Vigilance Tribunals in Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. Together, they currently have around 80 cases, out of which only two are under trial. All cases filed before 2021 have been completed. While vigilance courts have cases pending for up to 40 years, tribunals are known for their speedy proceedings. Both tribunals are headed by district judges and function on the model of the Central Vigilance Tribunal. The state government spends around Rs 2 crore annually for their functioning.

Department-level manipulation Since tribunals ensure quick trials and strict punishment, senior officials often avoid referring cases to them. Instead, cases are handled internally within departments. Departments appoint their own officers to conduct disciplinary inquiries. After hearing the accused officials, decisions are often made in their favour.

Following the High Court’s observation about the low number of cases, judges from both tribunals are expected to meet the Chief Secretary and request that all eligible cases be referred to them. The government may also approach the High Court to remove the observation against the tribunals. The tribunals have also pointed out that the High Court made its remark based on a petition filed by a person from Palakkad, without hearing their side or issuing notice to them.