Vigilance Commission for action against 106 officers

October 22, 2006

Vigilance Commission for action against 106 officers

Press Trust of India

New Delhi, October 22, 2006

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1826083,0008.htm

The Central Vigilance Commission has directed different government organisations to take action against 106 officers, including those of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, public sector banks and Airports Authority of India, for their alleged involvement in various offences.

Based on investigation reports submitted by the CBI and Chief Vigilance Officers, the Commission has asked authorities to initiate “major penalty proceedings” against the officials involved in 112 different cases.

The officers include 18 from Central Board of Excise and Customs, 14 from Municipal Corporation of Delhi, nine of insurance companies, seven from Delhi Development Authority, five each from public sector banks and Bureau of Indian Standards, four each from AAI and Steel Authority of India besides others, a CVC release said.

In 57 other cases, the Commission advised authorities to take action against 58 officials involved in different illegalities.

Those against whom action was recommended include 14 officers of BSNL, seven of public sector banks, five of insurance companies, three each of railways ministry, besides others.

In September, the Commission disposed of 395 cases referred to it for advice. Besides, investigations by the Commission’s CTE unit resulted in recoveries to the tune of Rs 34 lakh during the month, the CVC said.


List of Officers under probe, suspicion hold sensitive posts in Customs, Central Excise

October 11, 2006

CLOUD LIST OF APPRAISERS AS ON 01/04/2006

  CLOUD LIST OF MUMBAI CUSTOM HOUSE.doc
110K View as HTML Download

 

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=202463

Officers under probe, suspicion hold sensitive posts in Customs, Central Excise

 

  CLOUD LIST OF MUMBAI CUSTOM HOUSE.doc
110K View as HTML Download

Sr. No. Name of officer S/Shri Gist of the case Remarks

 

  CLOUD LIST OF MUMBAI CUSTOM HOUSE.doc
110K View as HTML Download

 

CLOUD LIST OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CUTOMS (PREVENTIVE) S ON 01/04/2006

Sr. No.

Name of officer S/Shri

Gist of case

Remarks

  CLOUD LIST OF MUMBAI CUSTOM HOUSE.doc
110K View as HTML Download

Customs rejects RTI query on its staff

October 11, 2006

Customs rejects RTI query on its staff

Customs rejects RTI query on its staff

Viju B | TNN

Mumbai: It’s a question of who will bell the cat. The customs vigilance department is refusing to divulge information pertaining to officials working in its own department under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The reason given: the information would hamper investigations and amount to an invasion of privacy.
   The application filed under the RTI act was rejected by the Additional Director General of Vigilance, who in a written reply stated that the information sought was “an unwarranted invasion of privacy’’ and would “impede the process of investigation.’’
   Mumbai-based RTI activist Rajesh Dharak had filed the query seeking details regarding various vigilance officers of the West zone unit located in Mumbai. However, the vigilance headquarters, Customs and Excise, New Delhi refused to give out the information citing sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
   A senior official with the customs vigilance department said the wing had a impeccable record. Entrusted with the task of keeping a vigil on customs officials, he said that it was preventing corruption and irregularities, inquiring into such complaints and punishing those responsible.
   But Dharak has now gone in for an appeal questioning the validity of the decision to deny the information. “It is a
fundamental right of the citizens of the country to find out whether probe agencies like vigilance department of the government are functioning properly,’’ said Dharak. In his query, he had not even asked the names of the officers; it was in the nature of a general application regarding the number of complaints received against vigilance officers, date of commencement of inquiries, date of completion of inquiries and the status of inquiries.
   Earlier, Dharak had filed another RTI query in April this year after he learnt that a vigilance department of the western zone had violated a Central Vigilance Commission circular that the tenure of officers cannot exceed more than three years in ‘sensitive’ postings. He had then obtained information that 11 officers, of the rank of additional commissioner and superintendent, had managed to continued in the same post for over three years and thus violated the CVC guideline.
   But even with this query, incomplete information was provided. “Queries like whether there has been a violation of the CVC circular and who is responsible and punishable for this violation was unanswered,’’ Dharak says. He has now filed a second appeal before the Chief Information Commission.
   RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi said Dharak’s case indicated the problems faced by the common man in acquiring information on government decision despite the enactment of the RTI act.

 

 


CBI arrests 2 JNPT officials on graft charges

October 11, 2006

CBI arrests 2 JNPT officials on graft charges

PTI

Friday, October 06, 2006  21:01 IST
MUMBAI: The Central Bureau of Investigation on Friday arrested four persons, including two senior officials of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Assistant Commissioner T K Chakraborty of the Customs Department of JNPT, Appraiser P Kiro, and two Customs clearing agents were arrested and remanded to custody till October 10, CBI officials said.

The agency had on Thursday raided the home of Chakraborty and seized Rs five lakh and jewellery worth Rs four lakh. A case of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income was registered against him, CBI Deputy Inspector General Kiran Jadhav said.

The CBI also seized documents for three immovable properties worth Rs 50 lakh, and confiscated a car, Demat accounts and many shares, he said. Two bank lockers of the customs official were yet to be opened, he said

In the second raid, CBI seized unaccounted money to the tune of Rs 10 lakh from different bank accounts of Kiro. Officials also recovered a fixed deposit of Rs two lakh and documents for property worth Rs 12 lakh.

Two of Kiro’s bank lockers were also yet to be opened, Jadhav said.


500 kg gold smuggled in just 45 days! Salem aide says he brought in the gold through Delhi airport and was ‘escorted out safely’ by a Customs official

October 11, 2006
500 kg gold smuggled in just 45 days!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006 | Lead Story
Salem aide says he brought in the gold through Delhi airport and was ‘escorted out safely’ by a Customs official
Abhijit Sathe
The hunt is on for a Customs official who allegedly helped a key Abu Salem aide, Mohammed Akmal Mohammed Umar Ansari alias Guddu, to smuggle in a staggering 500 kgs of gold from Dubai to Delhi in just 45 days.

Guddu, arrested by Oshiwara police last week, has sensationally claimed that he made 50 trips to Dubai in those 45 days in 1998-’99, and was “escorted” out of Delhi airport every time with the consignment by a Customs official. The same official then put him up at a Delhi hotel and even regularly provided him a ‘return ticket’ to Dubai to get a new consignment, Guddu has told his interrogators.

Police say Guddu’s revelations will be instrumental in shedding light on Salem’s fugitive years and his business empire.

Giving details of his modus operendi, Guddu has said that after arriving at Delhi airport, he had “instructions” to keep his bag open at the waiting lounge. Once he did that, an ‘unknown’ person would keep American currency in the bag as ‘reward’ for the smuggling and disappear, he has said.

Additional police commissioner (western region) Bipin Bihari confirmed that Guddu had made these claims and said they were being verified.

Inspector Dilip Patil of Oshiwara police station said Guddu and another Salem aide Jamir Ahmed Mohammed Yakub Noor Mohammed Siddiqui, caught when trying to rob a bank in Oshiwara, were a “prize catch.” While Guddu knew everything about Salem’s smuggling activities during the gang’s most active period the late 90s — and was wanted for the murder of Chhota Shakeel and Chhota Rajan men, Siddiqui was the man who had shot at film-maker Rakesh Roshan and threatened Adlabs owner Manmohan Shetty in the year 2000, Patil said.

In late 1999, Salem discontinued smuggling and asked Guddu to stay put in Mumbai along with Siddiqui to carry on his extortion business, Guddu has told his interrogators.

After he arrived in Mumbai in ’99, Patil said, Guddu bumped off several informants of rival gangs, namely Shakeel man Iqbal Chunawala (at D N Nagar), Chhota Rajan’s real estate agent Iqbal Langda (at Mahim), another Rajan man Babu Bhaiyya (at Trombay) and one Munna at Shivaji Nagar.

Siddiqui in turn, acting on his boss’s directives, shot at Rakesh Roshan and threatened Manmohan Shetty before escaping from the custody of the Mumbai crime branch in 2000.

Guddu too jumped the bail the same year and both went into hiding for nearly five years before re-entering Mumbai recently, police sources said.


RTI::Second Appeal – Rotation of officials working in sensitive posts

October 7, 2006

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: rajesh darak <darak786@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 4, 2006 10:13 AM
Subject: Second Appeal – Rotation of officials working in sensitive posts
To: CG_CIC_Wajahat_Habibullah <whabibullah@nic.in>
Cc: CG_CIC_Jt_Secy_P_K_Gera < pkgera@nic.in>, nisha.singh@nic.in, lcsinghi@nic.in

Second Appeal under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

 

To        :  The Central Information Commission,

               Block No 4, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus,

               New Delhi – 110 067.                     

 

(1)        Full name of the Appellant :

Mr. Rajesh Vishnudas Darak

 

(2)        Address :         

C/o. Whistleblowers India, 8, Varsha, North South Road No.5, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056.    

 

(3)        Particulars of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) :

Shri C. S. Prasad, Addl. Director General,

Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise,

1st Floor, Samrat Hotel, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi – 110 021.  Phone: 011-2611 5725

 

(4)        Particulars of the First Appellate Authority (AA) :

Shri Jogendra Singh, Director General,

Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, Headquarters Office,

1st Floor, Samrat Hotel, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi – 110 021.   Phone: 011-2611 5722

 

(5)        Date of receipt of the order appealed against      : 10th July, 2006

                        (If order passed)

 

(6)        Last date for filing the appeal     : 7th October, 2006      

 

(7)        The grounds for appeal :

 

The subject matter of information is, ‘Relating to violation of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Circular No. 98/VGL/60 dated 15 th April, 1999 on the subject, “Rotation of officials working in sensitive posts”; attention to which was again invited by the CVC vide its communication dated 2nd November, 2001 to all the Chief Vigilance Officers. A copy of this is available on the website of CVC and the link is http://cvc.nic.in/vscvc/instn1.pdf  .

 

The CPIO has not answered the following two questions :

 

c)      Has there been a violation of the circular stated in 3 (i) above in case of such officers?

 

d)      In case there has been a violation of the said circular, the names and designations of the persons responsible and punishable for the same.

 

 

It is important to know whether there has been a violation of the said CVC circular or not. Although, the violation is obvious & evident from the answers to a) & b); the CPIO has only attempted to justify the violation, in his reply to c) & d). The CPIO has also not disclosed, the name & designation of the competent authority, which is responsible for monitoring the postings with respect to the said CVC circular. Also, if there has been a violation, whether the person responsible is punishable or not is another question which the CPIO is evading. The AA is also not willing to disclose answers to these vital questions.

 

Even, the justification is not proper and convincing. The CPIO has stated, ‘The competent authority’s decision to relieve the officers who have completed more than 3 years in the West Zone Unit of this Directorate has already been communicated’; but, he has not stated the frequency & dates of this communication. The CPIO has stated, ‘Consequently, circular has been issued by the Directorate General inviting applications from suitable candidates for appointment in the Directorate on deputation basis’; but, he has not stated in detail as to when, how & how frequently this was done and what was the outcome. The CPIO has stated, ‘However, it is mentioned that being sensitive organization, applicants’ integrity, reputation and professional records are strictly evaluated before they are appointed’; but no details about the process of evaluation has been furnished. The CPIO has stated, ‘In the process and also in the interest of smooth functioning of Vigilance machinery, some officers happen to overstay under compulsion’, but fails to justify the violation of the said CVC circular.

 

Please note that the violation of the said CVC circular is a matter of fact; therefore, there is no subjectivity involved in this conclusion and so the question of being judgemental as stated by the AA does not arise. Having understood that there is a violation, it is extremely important to know who is responsible for the same and also whether the person is punishable or not. If responsibility & culpability is not fixed in public administration and particular persons are not held accountable for their acts of commissions or omissions, it will only encourage more such violations.

 

Hence, you are requested to direct the AA / CPIO to forthwith furnish the requisite information.

 

The above statements made by me are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.  The enclosures attached to this Appeal petition are true copies of the original.

 

 

Place    : Mumbai

 

Date     : 4th October, 2006                                                                   Signature of Appellant.

 

 

Enclosures :

 

1)       Copy of my RTI Application dated 23rd March, 2006

2)       Copy of Receipt dated 5th April, 2006

3)       Copy of CPIO’s Reply dated 4th May, 2006

4)       Copy of my Appeal dated 30th May, 2006

5)       Copy of Receipt dated 7th June, 2006

6)       Copy of AA’s Order dated 4th July, 2006.

P.S. Enclosures 2) & 5) are not attached herewith, since these are only receipts. Hardcopies of appeal & all the enclosures are being separately sent today by Speed Post.

Rajesh Darak

Mera Bharat Mahaan…Nahi Hai,
Per Yeh Dosh Mera Hai.


Rajesh Darak

Mera Bharat Mahaan…Nahi Hai,
Per Yeh Dosh Mera Hai.

RTIApp_AdDG_Vig_WZU_RVD.pdf RTIApp_AdDG_Vig_WZU_RVD.pdf (10k) Scan and Save to Computer Save to Yahoo! Briefcase
RTIReply_AdDG_Vig_WZU_RVD_060506.pdf RTIReply_AdDG_Vig_WZU_RVD_060506.pdf (65k) Scan and Save to Computer Save to Yahoo! Briefcase
RTIAppeal_AdDG_Vig_WZU_300506_RVD.pdf RTIAppeal_AdDG_Vig_WZU_300506_RVD.pdf (9k) Scan and Save to Computer Save to Yahoo! Briefcase
RTIAAReply_AdDG_Vig_WZU_RVD_040706.pdf RTIAAReply_AdDG_Vig_WZU_RVD_040706.pdf (105k) Scan and Save to Computer Save to Yahoo! Briefcase

Officers under probe, suspicion hold sensitive posts in Customs, Central Excise

September 25, 2006

Officers under probe, suspicion hold sensitive posts in Customs, Central Excise

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=202463

Officers under probe, suspicion hold sensitive posts in Customs, Central Excise

134 officers held sensitive posts in last 5 years
N Ganesh

Mumbai, September 23: Unlike other central government centers, officers of Customs and Central Excise seem to be a privileged lot. For, they are the officers, who even in the face of an inquiry or suspicion, are not necessarily sidelined to a non-sensitive posting.

Such officers in the states of Maharashtra, Goa and Gujarat (west zone) continue to hold their posts that are officially classified as ‘sensitive’. In the last five years as many as 134 officers of the Customs and Central Excise in the west zone have occupied such sensitive postings despite figuring in the Cloud List or Agreed List. (see box)
To cite a few instances, a superintendent in Mumbai was put on Cloud List (1997) after diamonds worth 16 crore were replaced with fake ones while in another instance another superintendent at Sahar Air Cargo Complex was caught red-handed while throwing bribe money from his cabin window, (1999). But they still continued to hold their sensitive posts.

But such cases go against guidelines laid down by the Central Vigilance Commission and instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The guidelines clearly state that an officer whose name figures in the Cloud or the Agreed List, should not hold sensitive posts. In the current year, the guidelines specify two groups who should not hold such posts—officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and above and those who belong to the rank of Appraisers, Superintendent of Customs or Superintendent of Central Excise.

It is the duty of the Vigilance Directorate, the watchdogs of the Customs and Central Excise, to monitor such cases.

However senior vigilance department officers said shortage of officers in the commissionerate and because the number of sensitive posts outnumbers the non-sensitive posts, are some of the reasons that have had to let to the catch 22 situation.

“The commissionerate gives less sensitive charges to officers (from Cloud or Agreed list) and moreover the senior officers are duly informed to monitor such officers,’’ said the highly placed officer.

Director General of Vigilance Joginder Singh whose comment was sought on this issue did not respond to numerous phone and fax queries.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.