The Chief Technical Examiners' Organisation which was created in 1957 in the then Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply for the purpose of conducting concurrent Technical audit of the work of CPWD is now a part of the Central Vigilance Commission and its jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the Commission. It can be entrusted with the investigation of complaints etc. relating to civil works pertaining to any Ministry/ Department/Union Territory, and Central Corporate Undertakings falling within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The C.T.Es' Organisation also assist the CBI in the investigation of cases requiring its technical assistance. Requests for the assistance of the CTE's Organisation in any investigation should be addressed to the CTE's Organisation.

Engineering cells also exist under the Ministry of Railways and Ministry of Defence for performing the functions of a similar nature in respect of civil works, pertaining to their Ministries. Whenever the technical opinion of a wood expert is required, help and advice is sought from the Forest Research Institute, Dehra Dun. It is, however, open to the Commission to draw upon the advice of any of these Organisations at any time and also to have investigation made by the CTEs' Organisation in special cases pertaining to the civil works of the Ministry of Railways and the Ministry of Defence of its own or at the instance of the CBI. Recently, it has been decided that the CTE (CVC) and the CTE(Defence) would conduct joint inspection of non-sensitive defence works; and that the Railway Zonal Establishments would submit quarterly reports in respect of civil and electrical works costing Rs.50 lakhs and above to the CTE for further action.

The Chief Vigilance Officer should keep a close watch on the progress of preliminary enquiries to ensure that the processing of enquiries is done as expeditiously as possible.

In cases referred by CVC for investigation/enquiries, the Department should normally sent its report of enquiries to the Commission within three months from the date of receipt of the reference. This limit may be extended to six months in the case of complaint entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation, since cases entrusted to the Bureau involve detailed investigation. If due to unavoidable reasons, it is not possible to complete the investigation within the specified period, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry/Department or the DIG., CBI as the case may be should personally look into the matter and send an interim report to the Commission giving the progress of the investigation, reasons for delay and the date by which the final report could be expected.

In respect of references made by the Commission to the CBI., Ministries, etc. for clarification and/or comments, the same should be sent to the Commission within 6 weeks. If in any case it is not possible to do so within the stipulated period, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry/Department or the DIG., CBI concerned should, after satisfying himself of the reasons for delay write to the Commission for extension of time. If the required clarification/comments or a request for extension is not received within this period, the Commission will tender advice on the basis of the material before it.

When investigation is started against an officer who is on deputation, it will be appropriate if the parent department sends intimation to that effect to the borrowing organisation. In such cases, the result of final investigation should also be sent to the borrowing organisation.

At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants for promotion/ confirmation, details of Government servants in the consideration zone falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:-

1. Government servants under suspension;

2. Government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings;

3. Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending or sanction for prosecution has been issued or a decision has been taken to accord sanction for prosecution;

4. Government servants against whom an investigation or serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any other agency, departmental or otherwise.

The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the Government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending or contemplated against them or where the investigation is in progress. The assessment of the DPC, including "Unfit for Promotion", and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a sealed cover. Detailed instructions on the sealed cover procedure are given in para 12, Chapter V on Suspension.

Investigation into cases of public servants under suspension or about to retire should be given the highest priority so that the period of suspension is kept to the barest minimum and there is sufficient time for processing the investigation report. The instructions contained in paragraph 9 of Chapter V on Suspension should be carefully observed. The fact of impending retirement and/or suspension of the officer should be prominently marked on the case to attract attention to all concerned.

If a complaint against a public servant is found to be malicious, vexatious or unfounded, it should be seriously considered whether action should be taken against the complainant for making a false complaint.

Under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code a person making a false complaint can be prosecuted. Section 182 reads as follows: Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant:

1. to do or omit anything which such public servant ought to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known to him, or

2. To use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees, or with both.

1. A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or misconduct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

2. A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place, knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z's premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this Section.

3. A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assailants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villagers or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.

If the person making a false complaint is a public servant, it may be considered whether departmental action should be taken against him as an alternative to prosecution.M

Under section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, a person making a false complaint can be prosecuted on a complaint lodged with a court of competent jurisdiction by the public servant to whom the false complaint was made or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.

When Central Vigilance Commission comes across any such complaint while dealing with matters that come up before it, the Commission would advise the administrative authority concerned about appropriate action to be taken on its own initiative.

The complete record of cases arising in the Ministry/Department may be sent to the Commission who after examining the evidence available will advise whether the person making a false complaint should be prosecuted, or proceeded against departmentally.

The administrative authorities, may, at their discretion, seek the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission in respect of cases involving public servants.

In case an officer against whom enquiry or investigation is pending (whether he has been placed under suspension or not) submits his resignation, such resignation should not normally be accepted. Where, however, the acceptance of resignation is considered necessary in the public interest [because the alleged offence(s) do not involve moral turpitude or the evident against the delinquent officer is not strong enough to justify the assumption that if the proceedings are continued the officer would be removed or dismissed from service or the proceedings are likely to be so protracted that it would be cheaper to the public exchequer to accept the resignation]the resignation may be accepted with the prior approval of the Head of the Department in the case of holders of Groups C and D posts and that of the Minister In-charge in respect of Group A and B posts. Prior concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission should also be obtained, in respect of Groups "A" and "B" posts, before submitting the case to the Minister In-charge if the CVC has advised initiation of departmental action against the officer concerned or such action has been initiated on the advice of the CVC. In case of Group B officers serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, such a resignation may be accepted with the prior approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Approval of the CVC should also be obtained if the CVC has tendered advice in respect of that officer.