This story is from July 2, 2014

Staff crunch renders vigilance department ineffective

The vigilance department of the city corporation is struggling. Hamstrung by a severe staff shortage and shackled by political interference, it has not been able to take action against corruption in high places, say sources.
Staff crunch renders vigilance department ineffective
CHENNAI: The vigilance department of the city corporation is struggling. Hamstrung by a severe staff shortage and shackled by political interference, it has not been able to take action against corruption in high places, say sources.
Forced to make do with just one deputy superintendent of police and two inspectors against the required strength of 39, it has not been able to lay traps and nab the corrupt, say insiders.
When it does initiate action, they add, it is only against some lower level officials.
And residents continue to grease palms to get their work done. According to the anti-corruption website (http://www.ipaidabribe.com) of Janaagraha, a Bangalore-based NGO, the most number of bribes paid by Chennaiites are for civic services.
Senthil Arumugam, general secretary of Satta Panchayat Iyakkam, an NGO fighting against corruption, said Chennai Corporation had not created any awareness about its vigilance department or publicised its complaint number. The department should be independent to take action against wrongdoers but this was not possible because of political interference, he added.
Members of the public can call the vigilance department on 25368073/25619297 and report cases of corruption. But, a vigilance official said, they rarely got complaints from the public. “We investigate cases based on complaints received by the CM’s cell, mayor’s cell or the corporation commissioner,” he said. Another official said that the recent corporation council meet passed a resolution to appoint one superintendent of police, three DSPs, five inspectors, 10 sub-inspectors and 20 head constables. Under the plan, every three regions will have one DSP, one
inspector, two sub inspectors and four head constables.
The corporations of a few other cities seem to be faring better in contrast. The vigilance department of the Surat Corporation has conducted inspections and caught more than 200 employees for reporting late on duty, while Chennai Corporation has not conducted any such inspections in its zonal offices or at Ripon Buildings.
In Bangalore, every councillor has to declare to the mayor every year the assets owned by him and by his family members. The declaration is uploaded on the civic body’s website. In Chennai, there is no such mechanism.
The Union government had asked all states to constitute an ombudsman and to set up a proper audit mechanism for the local bodies, especially for funds disbursed by the Centre. But Tamil Nadu is yet to appoint an ombudsman to tackle corruption and irregularities in local bodies.
author
About the Author
Christin Mathew Philip

Christin Mathew Philip is a Principal Correspondent with The Times of India, Bengaluru. He writes on urban mobility and traffic issues. He is the winner of Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award (2015) for his reporting on civic issues in Chennai. He worked in TOI Chennai (2011-2016) before moving to The New Indian Express, Bengaluru in 2016.

End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA