Imphal, March 22 2009: The Manipur Vigilance Commission while recommending enforcement of the system of annual poverty returns of the government employees strictly has also observed the need for screening of all officers above the age of 50 years or those who have completed 20 years of service to weed out official lacking in integrity.

Every government office has some posts which deal substantially with the public and which present opportunities for corruption.

Such posts are easily identifiable in each organization and it is necessary to ensure that the state is not employed in such posts beyond the term of three years except with the approval of higher authority, the commission observed in its annual report for the year 2008-09 which was tabled in the recently concluded House of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Most of the employees of the Manipur government managed to avoid submission of annual property returns for many years.

This make impossible to check-up cases of disproportionate assets against government employees suspected to be indulging in corruption and amassing wealth.

"This has to be checked and the system of annual property returns strictly enforced," the commission observed while recommending that action should be taken up under provision of Financial Rules 56(i) for screening of all officers above the age of 50 years or those who have completed 20 years of service to weed out officials lacking in integrity.

The commission is undertaking general check and supervision over all vigilance and anti-corruption works in the state and making investigation into any act of a public servant involving corruption, lack of integrity, misdemeanour, misconduct or malpractice.

It observed and recommended that it is necessary to conduct surprise check on offices, on works undertaken, on purchase and such other matter by drafting detailed guidelines for the purpose by the head of department.

Concurrent checks is needed especially in engineering departments as large number of cases payment in excess of work done were found to have been made in these departments, the commission observed recommending introduction of a system of concurrent evaluation in the engineering departments.

With 37 enquiry cases out of 156 taken up during last year, 2008, the Manipur Education Department continued to be the most sensitive department among 11 departments under the Manipur government which the State Vigilance Commission categorized based on an analysis report of a number of parameter.

The commission undertakes general check and supervision over all vigilance and Anti-Corruption works in the state.

It put the 11 departments DC/DRDA (deputy commissioner offices taking as District Rural Development Agencies), education (s), health services, industries, power, PHED, Revenue, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, social welfare, veterinary and animal husbandry and works departments based on the analysis into the acts of a public servant involving corruption, lack of integrity, misdemeanor, misconduct or malpractice.

The annual report of the commission which was tabled in the House of the Manipur Legislative Assembly on the last day seating last weekend put the State Power Department second to education (school) department with 15 enquiry cases, DC/DRDA with 11 cases in the third which state PWD and PHED with seven cases each followed after.

A Vigilance Cell is necessary to open for exercising constant and continuous vigilance as these departments are exposed more to public dealing as well as those concerned with issue of licenses etc.

and public are put to great hardship due to corrupt practices and delay is created mostly by these departments.

They should be subjected to active vigil, it said.

The Manipur Vigilance Commission has been able to detect 169 cases of work-charged employees whose confirmation orders were issued by the Chief Engineer of the state Public Works Department (PWD) after expiry/retirement with retrospective effect, said the annual report.

During the same year, commission disposed off 126 cases and out of 28 cases recommended for departmental action for imposing major penalty in 22 cases and six cases for minor penalty, government has taken up three cases, two for major penalty and one for minor penalty.

Comment