RBV No.

05 /2015
Government of India
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board

New Delhi, dated

No.2015/V-l/CVC/l/3

The General Manager(Vigilance)

Zonal Railways

Chief Vigilance

/10/2015

Officers/PUs/PSUs

COREl ALD, NF(CONST)I

METRO/KOLKATA
Director Generals /
RDSO/LKO & NAIR/Vadodara

Sub:

CAOjCOFMOW
DMW/ Patiala

Consultation
with
CVC/Railway
Board
for
obtaining
first
stage
advice
Advance
Correction
Slip
No.20
to
Indian
Railway
Vigilance Manual, 2006.

Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) have decided to modify the

existing paras 206, 207, 417 and sub-para 208.3 of the Indian Railway
Vigilance Manual (2006 Edition) relating to definition of Vigilance Angle and
specifying the procedures for consultation with Railway Board and Central
Vigilance Commission, as per the enclosed Advance Correction Slip No.20.
cve's circular No.015/MISC/016
dated 27/04/2015
circulated vide this
Office letter of even number<Jated 11/05/2015 (RBV No.04/2015), refers.

~\c;
(Mayank Tewari)
Director Vigilance (M)
Railway Board

<Copy to:i)
ii)

All Officers and the Branches of Vigilance Directorate

AIRF, NFIR, IRPOF, FROA & AIRPFA

INDIAN RAILWAY VIGILANCE MANUAL, 2006

ADVANCE CORRECTION SLIP NO.20
Existing Paras 206 and 207 of Chapter" and Para 417 of Chapter IV stand replaced by the following
insertions. In addition, sub-para 208.3 stands deleted.
Para 206: Vigilance angle:
206.1 eve tenders advice in cases which involve a vigilance angle. It has defined vigilance angle as the
following:
(i) Demanding and/or accepting gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act or for
using his influence with any other official.
(ii) Obtaining any valuable thing, without consideration or with inadequate consideration, from a person with
whom he has or is likely to have official dealings, or with whom his subordinates have official dealings or where
he can exert influence.
.
(iii) Obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal
means or by abusing his position as a public servant.
(iv) Possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
(v) eases of misappropriation, forgery or cheating or other similar criminal offences.
206.2 (a) This is not an exhaustive list. eve has mentioned other irregularities where circumstances will have to
be weighed carefully to take a view whether the officer's integrity is in doubt. These include cases of gross or
willful negligence; recklessness in decision making; blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of
discretion in excess, where no ostensible public interest is evident; failure to keep the controlling
authority/superiors informed in time. In these cases, the Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Vigilance Officer
should carefully study the case and conclude whether there is reasonable ground to doubt the integrity of the
officer.
206.2(b) Any undue/unjustified delay in the disposal of a case, perceived after considering all relevant factors,
would reinforce a conclusion as to the presence of vigilance angle in a case.
(Ref: CYC's Office Order No.74/12/05

dated 21.12.2005)

206.3 The raison d'etre of vigilance activity is not to reduce but to enhance the level of managerial efficiency and
effectiveness in the organisation. Commercial risk taking forms part of business. Therefore, every loss caused to
the organisation, either in pecuniary or non-pecuniary terms, need not necessarily become the subject matter of
a vigilance inquiry. Thus, whether a person of common prudence, working within the ambit of the prescribed
rules, regulations and instructions, would have taken the decision in the prevailing circumstances in the
commercial/operational interests of the organisation is one possible criterion for determining the bonafides of the
case. A positive response to this question may indicate the existence of bona- fides. A negative reply, on the
other hand, might indicate their absence.
206.4. Absence of vigilance angle in various acts of omission and commission does not mean that the concerned
official is not liable to face the consequences of his actions. All such lapses not attracting vigilance angle would,
indeed, have to be dealt with appropriately as per the disciplinary procedure under the service rules
(Ref: CVC's Office Order NO.23/4/04 dated 13.4.2004)
206.5 Thus, the cve gives advice only in such cases in which there is a vigilance angle. In other cases, where
it concludes that the lapses do not attract vigilance angle, necessary disciplinary action will have to be taken by
the concerned disciplinary authority under conduct/disciplinary rules, as deemed appropriate. These cases are
not to be referred to eve for any further advice.
.01 OF 03 PAGES.

2
Para 207: Processing
207.1:

of Investigation

reports/Preventive

check reports:

Cases required to be sent by Railway Board to CVC for advice:

a)

In all cases, including complaint cases and preventive check cases, involving Group 'A' Officers where
findings of investigation report prima facie indicate vigilance angle/corruption, reference shall be made
to the Commission.

b)

In all cases referred by CVC for investigation and report, reference will be made to the Commission
irrespective of whether the investigation report prima facie indicates a vigilance angle/corruption or not.

c)

In all cases arising out of complaints and preventive checks relating to Group'A' Officers where there is
difference of opinion between the CVO and the DA as to the presence of vigilance angle, the matter as
also inquiry reports on complaints having vigilance angle, though unsubstantiated, would continue to be
referred to the Commission for first stage advice.
(Ref: CYC's instructions dated 27.4.2015, circulated vide Board's letters NO.20151V
1/CVC/1/3 dated 11.05.2015, 26.05.2015)

d) Written complaints/disclosures (Whistle Blower Complaints) received under Public Interest Disclosure
and Protection of Informers' Resolution (PIDPI), 2004 or the Whistle Blower's Protection Act, 2011
would also continue to be handled/processed by CVOs in terms of the existing prescribed procedures or
as amended from time to time.
(Ref: CYC's instructions dated 27.4.2015, circulated vide Board's letters NO.20151V
1/CVC/1/3 dated 11.05.2015, 26.05.2015)
e) Cases of Group 'B' officers (including those officiating on adhoc basis in the senior scale) and Group 'C'
and '0' officials, shall be sent to the cve for their first stage advice in case they are involved in a
composite case alongwith a Group'A' Officer and the findings of investigation report prima facie indicate
vigilance angle/corruption.
207.2

Cases required to be sent to Railway Board but may not be sent to CVC:

(a)
In all cases arising out of complaints and preventive checks relating to category 'A' officers as well as
composite cases wherein, category 'B' officers are also involved, which are not referred by the cve for
investigation and report and where it has been indicated in the inquiry/investigation report that the allegations, do
not indicate prima facie vigilance angle/corruption and relate to purely non-vigilance/administrative lapses, the
SDGM/CVO's report recommending administrative/disciplinary actionlclosure would be submitted to the DA and
subsequently after obtaining the views of the GMIDA, the case will be submitted to Railway Board. If it is
concluded that the matter does not have a vigilance angle, such cases may be finalised by Railway Board if
views and recommendations of the CVO of Ministry of Railways are in line with the views of the DA.
(Ref: CYC's instructions

dated 27.4.2015, circulated vide Board's letters NO.2015/v1/CVC/1/3

dated 11.05.2015, 26.05.2015)

(b)
All other cases where the senior most officer is a Group 'B' officer and clarification has been obtained
or action has been recommended (including Group'B' Officer officiating on adhoc basis in senior scale), shall be
sent by Zonal Railway/PUs to Railway Board Vigilance for obtaining the first stage advice of Chief Vigilance
Officer of the Ministry of Railways.
(Ref: Board's letter NO.2009/V1/CYC/1/15

dated 18.2.2010)

(c) All cases referred by Railway Board to Zonal Railways where a report has been called for.
207.3

Cases not required to be referred to Railway Board:

All other cases/complaints excluding cases/complaints covered under para 207.1 and 207.2 can be disposed off
by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the concerned Railway Unit.
.02 OF 03 PAGES.

03
207.4 While delegating the powers of tendering advice in the case of Group '8' officers to Additional Member
(Vigilance), CVC has also observed that it may depute its officers to conduct Vigilance Audit through on site
visits, monthly reports etc. If it comes across any matter, which in its opinion has not been handled properly, it
may recommend its review or give appropriate directions.

207.5 With respect to cases to be referred to the CVC for seeking

Stage Advice of the Commission,

procedure elaborated in paragraphs 207.1 to 207.4 shall supercede any confiicting instructions contained
elsewhere in the IRVM 2006.
151

Sub-para 208.3 - Deleted

Para 417:

Closure of Cases:

Closure of a case shall lie with the authority competent to finalize the case as per the extant instructions laid
down in para 207.1 to 207.3 of this manual.

----xxx---