Report on Project VIGEYE

1. Analysis of complaints:

The complaints received under VIGEYE can be classified under 5 categories. The nature of complaints and the action to be taken for each of these categories is tabulated below:

Category	Nature of complaints	Action taken
A	Complaints relating to problem in delivery of public service or cases where citizens are harassed by public officials probably with the expectation of bribe. Many of them may be in the nature of grievance but the very cause of grievance may be an expectation of bribe.	Wherever information provided was inadequate for action the complainant was contacted (by mobile or e-mail) seeking the required information. The Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the concerned Organisation was directed to verify the facts stated in the complaint and if the grievance was found to be genuine and that there was no justification for denying/delaying the service, the organisation was directed to redress the complaint. Penal action against the guilty officials was to be taken up. Action is to be reported by the CVO to the Central Vigilance Commission within 48 hours or one week, depending upon the case.
B	Complaints indicating systemic and rampant corruption in various government activities, which may require detailed investigation and analysis.	The Chief Vigilance Officer was directed to verify the facts of the case by conducting a preliminary inquiry and report the findings to the CVC within 15 days or one month, depending on the case. If the findings indicate possibility of serious corruption, then detailed investigation will be conducted either directly by the CVC or by the CVO under the close supervision of the Commission/BO.
C	Complaints against particular officials or particular transactions which do not effect the citizens at large, and which can be dealt in a routine manner.	These complaints were routed through the concerned sections of the Commission for necessary action.
D	Complaints pertaining to State Governments, which do not fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction.	Such complaints were forwarded to the Lok Ayuktas/State Vigilance Commission/Chief Secretary for necessary action.
E	Complaints containing general, non-verifiable or non-vigilance matters.	To be filed.

2. Category wise analysis of complaints received from 9th Dec., 2010 till 15th Jan., 2011.

Out of 203 complaints received, 107 complaints were in the nature of ‘test complaints’ i.e. the citizens were testing the system. The composition of the different categories of the complaints is shown below:-

Category	Number of complaints
A	17
B	21
C	14
D	15
E	29
Test	107
Total	203

Mobile Complaints : 108

Web Complaints : 95

The organisations under the jurisdiction of the Commission against whom significant (more than 3) number of complaints were received, is shown below:-

Organisations	No. of complaints
Railways	8
MCD	6
Health	5
Bank	5
HRD	4
Finance	4

3. Action taken on Complaints received

Out of the 17 complaints, which were categorised as ‘A’, action was called for from the CVO within 48 hrs in respect of 7 cases. Action has been taken and citizens have reported satisfaction. In the remaining 10 cases CVOs have been asked to report by 15^th Jan., 2011.

Illustrative cases

i) A citizen from a village in Alwar District of Rajasthan had complained that the Oriental Bank of Commerce branch did not entertain his application for an education load of Rs. 50,000 for his wife’s education. The Bank was willing to give a loan of not less than Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs. The complaint was forwarded to the CVO for action and the citizen’s loan application was processed within 48 hours.

ii) An Inspector of Municipal Corporation of Delhi confiscated the generators installed in a commercial complex. The generators of owners who paid bribe were returned, while those of other who refused to pay bribe was not returned. On the receipt of complaint, the CVO of MCD took prompt action and despatched a team to verify the facts. Consequently, the Inspector was transferred and disciplinary action was being undertaken against him.

iii) A complaint was received from Malapuram District (Kerala) against a Bharat Gas Agency, alleging that the agency was providing new LPG connection only on the condition that the applicant should purchase hot plate/gas stove from the agency. It was also alleged that this malpractice was going on with the support of the BPCL officials. After investigation and intervention by the Chief Vigilance Officer, BPCL, new connection was released to the complainant without having to buy the hot plate/gas stove from the agency. Detailed investigations are being conducted across several distributorships in the region to detect such irregularities and to discourage the dealers from indulging in such malpractices.

iv) A complaint was received from a group of farmers alleging corruption and malpractices in granting subsidy to them under the horticulture projects undertaken by the National Horticulture Board in Almora (Uttrakhand). Based on the complaint, a team headed by a Deputy Director and two Sr.Asstt. Directors of National Horticulture Board have been deputed to investigate the matter in detail. Till date, about 11 out of 67 projects have been investigated. Investigations into the rest of the projects would be completed by the end of Feb., 2011.

Out of 21 cases categorised as ‘D’, preliminary inquiry report from the CVOs is due by 15^th or 31^st Jan., 2011.

***