Para 3.6(iii), chapter XI and para 8.6 Chapter XII of the Vigilance Manual, Volume. I, provide that the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is of a confidential nature meant to assist the disciplinary authority and should not be shown to the concerned employee.  It also mentions that the Central Vigilance Commission tenders its advice in confidence and its advice is a privileged communication and therefore, no reference to the advice tendered by the Commission should be made in any formal order.

    2. The commission has reviewed that above instructions in view of its policy that there should be transparency in all matters, as far as possible.  The Commission has observed that the Honble Supreme Court had  held a view in the case - State Bank of India Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another (Date of judgement 13/10/1992) - that non-supply of Central Vigilance Commission's instructions which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material, which was not only sent to the disciplinary authority but was examined and relied was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry.  Further, the Honble High Court of Karnatika at Bangalore, in writ petition No.6558/93, has also observed that if a copy of the report (Central Vigilance Commission's advice) was furnished to the disciplinary authority either to drop the proceedings or to impose lesser punishment instead of following blindly the directions in the Central Vigilance Commission's report.

   3. The Commission, at present, is being consulted at two stages in disciplinary proceedings i.e. first stage advice is obtained on the investigation report before issue of the charge sheet, and second stage advice is obtained either on receipt of reply to the charge sheet or on receipt of inquiry report.  If, however, does not seem necessary to call for the representation of the concerned employee on the first stage advice as the concerned employee, in any case, gets an opportunity to represent against the proposal for initiation of departmental proceedings against him.  Therefore, a copy of the Commission's first stage advice may be made available to the concerned employee along with a copy of the charge-sheet served upon him, for his information.  However, when The Central Vigilance Commission's second stage is obtained, a  copy thereof may be made available to the concerned employee, along with the inquiry officer's report to give him inopportunity to make representation against inquiry officer's findings and the central vigilance commission's advice, if he desires to do so.

      4. In view of the position stated above, Para 3.6(iii) chapter ZIP and Para 8.6, Chapter-XII of the Vigilance Manual Vol-I and also  para 2 of the commission's letter No.6/3/73-R dated 20-08-1973 may be treated as deleted.

      5. Para 12.44 of Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks and para 22.64 of the Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Enterprises envisage that the inquiring authorities, including the CDIs borne on the strength of the commission, would submit their reports to the disciplinary authority who would then forward the Inquiry Officer's reports, along with its own tentative views to the commission for its second stage stage advice.  The existing procedure in this regard may broadly continued.  The disciplinary authority may after examination of the inquiry report, communicate its tentative views to the Commission. The Commission would thereafter communicate its tentative views to the commission.  The commission would thereafter communicate its advice. This along with the disciplinary authority's views, may be made available to the concerned  employee.  On receiving his representation, if any the disciplinary authority may impose penalty in accordance with the Commission's advice or if it feels that the employee's representation warrants consideration, forward the same, along with the records of the case, to the commission for its reconsideration.

     6. Thus, if on the receipt of the employee's representation, the concerned administrative authority proposes to accept the Central Vigilance Commission's advice, it may issue the orders accordingly. But if the administrative authority come to the conclusion that the representation of the concerned employee necessitates reconsideration of the Commission's advice, the matter would be referred to the Commission.

                                                                                                        Yours' faithfully,

                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                         (K.L. AHUJA)
                                                                                       OFFICER ON  SPECIAL DUTY