As soon as a decision has been taken to have an inquiry made into allegations contained in a complaint, it will be necessary to decide whether the allegations should be inquired into departmentally or whether a police investigation is necessary.

As a general rule investigations of the types given below should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or the anti-corruption branch in the Union Territories.

1. allegations involving offences punishable under law which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are authorised to investigate, such as offences involving bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, etc.;

2. possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income;

3. cases in which the allegations are such that their truth cannot be ascertained without making inquiries from non-official persons or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of accounts etc.; and

4. Other cases of a complicated nature requiring expert police investigation:
   All Chief Vigilance Officers including those of public undertakings and Nationalised Banks, subject to the administrative instructions issued by the Chief Executive have complete discretion to refer the above types of cases to the CBI and it is not necessary to seek the Commission's prior permission.

The PSE should not take up inquiries or register a case where minor procedural flaws are involved. They should also take a note of an individual officer's positive achievement so that a single procedural error does not cancel out a life-time good work.

In cases in which the allegations are such as to indicate prime facie that a criminal offence has been committed but the offence is one which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are not authorised to investigate, the case should be handed over to the local police authorities.M

In cases where the allegations relate to a misconduct other than an offence or to a departmental irregularity or negligence and the alleged facts are capable of verification or inquiry within the Department/Office, the investigation should be made departmentally.

In certain cases the allegations may be of both types. In such cases it should be decided in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation as to which of the allegations should be dealt with departmentally and which should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

If there is any difficulty in separating the allegations for separate investigation in the manner suggested above, the better course would be to entrust the whole case to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Once a case has been referred to and taken up by the CBI for investigation, further investigation should be left to them and a parallel investigation by the Administrative Ministry/Department, Organisation should be avoided. Further action by the Department, should be taken on the completion of investigation by the CBI on the basis of their report.

Wherever the departmental inquiries have been initiated on the basis of investigations conducted by the Departments/Organisations, the Departments/ Organisations may proceed with such inquiry proceedings. In such cases, it would not be necessary for the CBI to investigate those allegations which are the subject matter of the departmental inquiry proceedings unless the CBI apprehends criminal misconduct on the part of the official concerned.

Announcements are sometimes made on behalf of Ministries/ Departments about entrusting of cases to the CBI for investigation without consulting the Department of Personnel and Training/CBI, when such cases have not actually been taken up by the CBI for investigation. The CBI is a specialised investigating agency which has limitations, both of resources and jurisdiction. If, therefore, after making any announcements to the effect that investigation would be made by the CBI, it is later found that the CBI is not in a position or is not empowered to undertake it, there would be considerable embarrassment all round, more so, if any assurance for a CBI inquiry is sought for and given in Parliament. In view of this position Ministries/ Departments etc. should consult the Department of Personnel and Training/CBI in advance before any public announcement is made or before any assurance is given in the Parliament about entrusting of any case to the CBI for investigation.

After it has been decided that the allegations contained in a complaint should be looked into departmentally, the Vigilance Officer should proceed to make a preliminary enquiry to determine whether prima facie there is some substance in them.

The preliminary enquiry may be made in several ways depending upon the nature of allegations and the judgment of the Vigilance Officer, e.g.:

1. If the allegations contain information which can be verified from any documents or files or any other departmental records, the Vigilance Officer should, without loss of time, secure such records, etc., for personal inspection. If any of the papers examined is found to contain evidence supporting the allegations such papers should be taken over by him for retention in his personal custody to guard against the possibility of available evidence being tampered with. If the papers in question are required for any current action, it may be considered whether the purpose would not be served by substituting authenticated copies of the relevant portions of the record, the original being retained by the Vigilance Officer in his custody. If that is not considered feasiblefor any reason, the officer requiring the documents or papers in question for current action should be made responsible for their safe custody after retaining authenticated copies for the purpose of the enquiry.

2. In case where the alleged facts are likely to be known to any other employees of the department, the Vigilance Officer should interrogate them orally or ask for their Written statements. The Vigilance Officer should make a full record of the oral interrogation which the person interrogated should be asked to sign in token of confirmation. Whenever necessary, any important facts disclosed during the oral interrogation or in written statements should be verified by documentary or collateral evidence to make sure of the facts.

3. In case it is found necessary to make enquiries from the employees of any other Government department or office, the Vigilance Officer will seek the assistance of the department concerned for providing facility for interrogating the person or persons concerned and/or taking theirwritten statements.

4. In certain types of complaints, particularly those pertaining to works, the Vigilance Officer will find it helpful to make a site inspection or a surprise check to verify the facts on the spot and also to take suitable action to ensure that the evidence found there in support of the allegations is not disturbed.

5. If during the course of investigation it is found that it will be necessary to collect evidence from non-official persons or to examine any papers or documents in their possession, further investigation in the matter should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

6. If the public servant complained against is in charge of stores, equipment, etc., and there is possibility of his tampering with the records pertaining to such stores or equipment, the Vigilance Officer may consider whether the public servant concerned should not be transferred immediately to other duties and seek the assistance of the head of the department or office in doing so.

During the course of preliminary enquiry, the public servant concerned may be given an opportunity to say what he may have to say about the allegations against him to find out if he is in a position to give any satisfactory information or explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is likely to be proceeded against unjustifiably. It is only proper, therefore, that the investigating officer tries to obtain the suspect officers' version of 'facts' and why an inquiry should not be held. There is no question of making available to him any documents at this stage.

Such an opportunity however may not be given in cases in which a decision to institute departmental proceedings is to be taken without any loss of time, for example, in a case in which the public servant concerned is due to retire or to superannuate soon and it is necessary to issue the charge-sheet to him before retirement.

While normally the preliminary enquiry will be made by the Vigilance Officer himself he may suggest to the administrative authority to entrust the inquiry to any other officer considered suitable in the particular circumstances of the case. It may, for example, be found advisable to entrust to a technical officer the conduct of the preliminary enquiry if it is likely to involve examination and appreciation of technical data or documents. Similarly the administrative authority may entrust an enquiry to an officer of sufficiently higher status if the public servant complained against is of a senior rank.

After the preliminary enquiry has been completed, the officer conducting the enquiry should prepare a self-contained report including the material available to controvert the defence. The investigation report should contain the explanation of the suspect officer. The fact that an opportunity as referred to earlier was given to the officer concerned should be mentioned in the Investigation report, even if the officer did not avail of it. The vigilance organisation should also take in their possession all connected documents, as this becomes very helpful, if later on departmental action has to be taken against the officer.

The Investigating Officer will submit his report to the disciplinary authority who will decide whether on the basis of the facts disclosed in the report of the preliminary enquiry, the complaint should be dropped or whether regular departmental proceedings should be instituted against the public servant concerned or the administration of a warning or caution would serve the purpose.

The decision whether departmental action should be taken against a public servant should be taken by the authority competent to award appropriate penalty specified in the CCS (CCA) Rules or relevant discipline and Appeal Rules. In cases where during the course of the preliminary enquiry or before a decision is taken on the report of the preliminary enquiry, a public servant is transferred to another post, the decision should be taken by the disciplinary authority of the latter post.

In cases pertaining to gazetted and other officers mentioned in Chapter I, the disciplinary authority should, before taking a decision, forward the report of the preliminary enquiry, together with all relevant documents and papers and its proposal as regards further course of action, through the CVO, to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice. Such consultation is necessary even in cases in which it is thought that the preliminary enquiry reveals that there is no substance in the allegations to justify any further action and it is proposed to close the case. Attention, however, is invited to Chapter II, regarding investigation of anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.

As soon as it is decided by the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against the public servant or public servants concerned, the complaint should be regarded as having taken the shape of a Vigilance case. Further action on it will be taken in the manner indicated in Chapter X to XII.

The date of commencement of a vigilance case will, in cases in which CVC is consulted, be the date on which the Commission tenders its advice. In other cases, it will be the date on which disciplinary authority decides to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

Unless there are any special reasons to the contrary, cases which are to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation should be handed over to them at the earliest stage. Apart from other considerations, it is particularly desirable to do so to safeguard against the possibility of the suspect public servant tampering with or destroying incriminating evidence against him. No review should ordinarily be made of a case once registered by the CBI. If, however, there are special grounds for the review of a case the CBI should invariably be associated with it. If any meeting is to be held in the department where a case under investigation by the CBI is to be discussed/reviewed, a representative of the CBI should always be invited.

In cases in which the information available appears to be authentic and definite so as to make out a clear cognisable offence or to have enough substance in it, the CBI may register a regular case (RC) straightaway under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

If the available information appears to require verification before formal investigation is taken up, a preliminary enquiry (PE) is first made. As soon as the preliminary enquiry reveals that there is substance in the allegations, a regular case may be registered for formal investigation.

As soon as a case is taken up for preliminary enquiry (PE) or a regular case (RC) is registered under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, a copy of the PE Registration Report/FIR will be sent by the CBI confidentially to the head of the department and/or Administrative Ministry concerned and the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry. A copy of the PE/FIR will also be endorsed to AG's Branch (PSI.) (AFHQ) in respect of commissioned officers and Org. 4 of the AG's Branch (AFHQ) in respect of civilian gazetted officers. The copy of the PE/FIR endorsed to the Ministry of Defence in such case will indicate that a copy has been sent to theA.G.ís Branch

In the case of officers of Public Undertakings and Nationalised Banks etc., a copy of the P.E./F.I.R. will be sent to the head of the Undertaking or the Custodian of the Bank etc.

The SPE will take into confidence the Head of the Department or office concerned before taking up any enquiry (PE or RC) or as soon after starting the enquiry as may be possible according to the circumstances of each case. This will also apply in case a search is required to be made of the premises of an officer.

(a) In regard to decision-making level officers (Joint Secretary or equivalent or above in the Central Government or such officers who are on deputation to a public sector undertaking; Board Level officers in public sector undertakings; officers of the Reserve Bank of India of the level equivalent to Joint Secretary or above in the Central Government and Chairman and Managing Director and Executive Directors of Nationalised Banks); there should be prior consultation with the Secretary of the Ministry/Department concerned before SPE takes up any enquiry (PE or RC), including ordering search, in respect of them. Without this concurrence, no enquiry shall be initiated by the SPE. In case of difference of opinion, the Director, CBI may refer the case to the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions for a decision.

In case, however, where inquiries have been ordered against senior officers, and, during the course of such inquiries, there is reason to believe that there is need to search the premises of another officer of decision making level then the requirements of the procedure prescribed in previous para of consulting the Secretary of the Ministry/ Department should be followed.

In case there is no time for such consultation, then the Secretary of the Ministry/Department should be immediately informed of the proposal to search the premises of the senior officers.

In case, however, it is only necessary to examine the senior officer with regard to inquiry against the other officer then the same could be carried out by the SPE.

In case, however, during the course of search or from the deposition in the inquiry against the other officers, there is reason to suspect mala-fide or corrupt practice against the officer of decision making level then the inquiry against the latter may be initiated only after following the procedure prescribed in an earlier Para.

In cases involving defence personnel (irrespective of their status and rank) the local administrative authority concerned will be taken into confidence as soon as possible. In case where the Delhi Special Police Establishment Division have already consulted the Army/Air/Naval Headquarters and the latter have agreed to enquiries or investigations being conducted, the local administrative authority concerned will be informed by the Army/Air/Naval Headquarters direct. The CBI will, however, take the local administrative authority into confidence before starting the enquiry.

If on completion of investigation, the CBI come to the conclusion that sufficient evidence is forth-coming for launching a criminal prosecution, then the final report of investigation in such cases shall be forwarded to the Central Vigilance Commission if sanction to prosecution is required under any law to be issued in the name of the President. In other cases, the report will be forwarded to the authority competent to sanction prosecution. The report will be accompanied by the draft sanction order in the prescribed form (see Chapter VII), and will give the rank and designation of the authority competent to dismiss the delinquent officer from service and the law or rules under which that authority is competent to do so. Further action to be taken on such reports is described in Chapter VII.

In other cases in which evidence available is not sufficient for launching criminal prosecution, the C.B.I. may come to the conclusion that:

1. The allegations are of a nature serious enough to justify regular departmental action being taken against the public servant concerned. The final report in such cases will be accompanied by-

   1. draft articles of charges prepared in the prescribed form (see Chapter X),

   2. a statement of imputations in support of each charge, and

   3. lists of documents and witnesses relied upon to prove the charges and imputations; or

2. While sufficient proof is not available to justify prosecution or regular departmental action, there is a reasonable suspicion about the honesty or integrity of the Government servant concerned, the final report in such cases will seek to bring to the notice of the disciplinary authority the nature of irregularity or negligence for such administrative action as may be considered feasible or appropriate.

Reports of both types mentioned in paragraph 3.10 which pertain to gazetted officers and other CAT 'A' officers will be forwarded by the CBI to the Central Vigilance Commission who will advise the disciplinary authority concerned regarding the course of further action to be taken. A copy of the report will be sent to the Ministry/ Department/Office concerned also. The CBI report may also mention the date when the first information was lodged or preliminary enquiry was registered, as this will be helpful for a proper assessment of the documentary evidence produced during the enquiry.

The reports forwarded to the Central Vigilance Commission will be accompanied by the verbatim statement(s) of the delinquent officer(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer and the opinion of the Legal Division of the CBI. wherever obtained.

Investigation reports pertaining to non-gazetted officers will be forwarded by the CBI direct to the disciplinary authority concerned. In such cases, no further departmental fact-finding enquiry should normally be necessary. However, if there are any points on which the disciplinary authority may desire to have additional information or clarification, the CBI may be requested to furnish the required information/clarification, if necessary by making a further investigation.

In cases in which preliminary enquiry/investigation discloses that there is no substance in the allegations, the CBI may decide to close the case. Such cases pertaining to gazetted officers and other CAT. "A" officers (please see para 3.1.1 Chapter II) will be reported to the Central Vigilance Commission as also to the authorities to whom copies of F.I.Rs./P.E. Registration Reports were sent. In other cases, the decision to close a case will be communicated by the CBI to the administrative authority concerned.

Investigation in certain cases may reveal that sufficient evidence is available justifying prosecution as well as departmental action. In such cases it has to be considered by the competent authority as to whether prosecution should precede departmental action or vice versa? On the recommendation of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, the Government of India has decided that prosecution should be the general rule in cases in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial public funds and which are found fit for prosecution on the basis of the evidence available. In such cases, departmental action should not precede prosecution. In other cases involving less serious offences or involving malpractices of a departmental nature, departmental action only should be taken and the question of prosecution should generally not arise. Whenever there is unresolved difference of opinion between the CBI and the administrative authority concerned as to whether prosecution in a court or departmental action should be resorted to in the first instance, the matter should be referred to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice.

There is considerable delay in the finalisation of criminal cases against public servants and meanwhile employing departments are unable to take a view about the utilisation of such public servants. In may cases, the accused person is under suspension. In such cases, especially where the charges are serious and the evidence strong enough, simultaneous departmental proceedings should be instituted so that a speedy decision is taken on the misconduct of the public servant and final decision can be taken as to his further continuance in employment.

There is no legal bar to the initiation of disciplinary action under the rules applicable to the delinquent public servant where criminal prosecution is already pending, and generally there should be no apprehension of the outcome of the one affecting the other, because the ingredients of misconduct/delinquency in criminal prosecutions and departmental proceedings as well as the quantum of proof required in both cases are not identical. In criminal cases, the proof required for conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings proof based on preponderance of probability is sufficient for holding the charges to have been proved. What might, however, affect the outcome of the subsequent proceedings may be contradictions which the witnesses may make in their depositions in the said proceedings. It would, therefore, be necessary that all relevant matters be considered in each individual case while taking a decision on whether or not to start simultaneous departmental action.