Rail ministry brands 22 officials ‘tainted'

In a major move against corruption, the railway ministry has branded 22 of its senior officials as “tainted”.

Update: 2016-04-16 05:02 GMT

In a major move against corruption, the railway ministry has branded 22 of its senior officials as “tainted”. These officials, under surveillance, have been for the time being kept away from any “sensitive postings”.

According to sources, the list of these “tainted officials with doubtful integrity” was provided to the railway ministry by the CBI. The list of tainted officials is also called “agreed or secret” list, they added.

“Four officers of the Northeastern Railway are in the current agreed list. All the four officers have been posted on non-sensitive posts as per the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),” sources said.

Besides, 18 officers of the Northeastern Railway are in the secret list also and 13 of them have been posted on non-sensitive posts as per CVC guidelines, they added.

Sources further said, “Remaining five officers are working on sensitive posts. However, as per provisions of Indian Railway Vigilance Manual 2006, the financial powers have been withdrawn in respect of four officers and one officer is on long sick leave.”

Meanwhile, in its bid to ensure that honest officers are not harassed by any prosecuting agency while seeking prosecution sanction from the concerned department or ministry, anti-corruption watchdog, the CVC, has already asked them to ensure that all guidelines for granting such sanctions should be “strictly followed” in letter and spirit as “grant of sanction is not a mere formality”. In a circular issued in June 2015 to all Central ministries and departments, the CVC said, “The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft-chargesheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material or document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.” The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record.

Similar News