E-Paper
CVC revises its master circulars on vigilance angle
New Delhi: Financial and non-financial losses caused to a government department, need not necessarily be considered to be the result of corruption or malfeasance , and no government official should be retained at a sensitive post for unduly long period in the guise of indispensability, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has said in new guidelines on issues related to vigilance in the ministries, departments and organisations of the Central government
Prefer HTon Google
New Delhi: Financial and non-financial losses caused to a government department, need not necessarily be considered to be the result of corruption or malfeasance , and no government official should be retained at a sensitive post for unduly long period in the guise of indispensability, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has said in new guidelines on issues related to vigilance in the ministries, departments and organisations of the Central government.
The apex vigilance body, which oversees and supervises the vigilance aspect of organizations owned or controlled by the Central government, including state-owned companies, has issued nine circulars to guide the functioning of chief vigilance officers (CVOs), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the competent authority in every ministry/department.
Master circular no. 1 of 2026 lists acts that can be viewed through the lens of vigilance. These include demanding and/or accepting bribes, possession of disproportionate assets, and cases of misappropriation, forgery or cheating.
It adds that there could be are other irregularities where circumstances will be weighed carefully to assess whether an official’s integrity is in doubt.
“Irregularities like gross of wilful negligence, recklessness in decision making; blatant violation of systems and procedures; exercise of discretion in excess where no ostensible public interest is evidence; failure to keep the controlling authority/superiors informed of required transactions and issues in time; and unjustified delay in disposal of a case, would require the competent authority (CA), with the help of CVOs to carefully study the case, consider all the relevant factors and weigh the circumstances to come to a conclusion, as to whether there is reasonable ground to doubt the integrity of the official concerned,” the circular, a copy of which has been seen by HT, added.
CVC, however, cautioned government departments to be careful when it comes to bonafide decisions. “It is to be kept in view that the purpose of vigilance activities is not to reduce, but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency and effectiveness in the organisation”, the circular noted.
“Commercial risk taking is a part of business activities. Therefore, every loss caused to organisation, either in pecuniary or non-pecuniary terms, may not be considered as having vigilance angle. Thus, whether a person of common prudence, working within the ambit of prescribed rules, regulations, instructions and procedures, would have taken the decision in the prevailing circumstances in the commercial/operational interest of the organisation, is one possible criterion for determining whether the decision is bonafide. A positive response to this question may indicate that the decision is bonafide...”.
Advocate Nirmal Singh Shekhawat said: “In my view, what this circular effectively does is draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of intent. I have seen several matters where officers were proceeded against years after a decision simply because it resulted in a loss, even though there was no corrupt motive. Such prosecutions don’t just harm the individual — they push public servants toward risk-aversion, which ends up hurting governance itself.”
CVC stressed that absence of vigilance angle in various acts of omission and commission does not mean that the official concerned is not liable to face the consequence. All such lapses not attracting vigilance angle, it added, “would have to be dealt with appropriately” under rules of that particular department.
In master circular number 9, which deals with “identification of sensitive posts and rotation of officials holding sensitive posts”, CVC says that a review and update of the list of sensitive posts is important in view of the everchanging scenario and increasing use of technology in the functioning of organisations.
It asks chief executives (secretary in the case of a ministry and CMD in case of Public Sector Unit or Bank) to take an exercise to identify sensitive posts in their organisation. The circular added that officials in these posts should be rotated every three years. “No official should be retained at the same sensitive post for an unduly long period by the authorities concerned in the guise of indispensability.”
Other circulars deal with role and functions of CVOs detailing the procedure and timeline for processing prosecution sanction requests of CBI under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is mandatory to file a charge sheet.
