THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Rattled by the flurry of CBI and vigilance cases the IAS fraternity not only in Kerala but across the country is seeking safeguards for bold decision making. The IAS officers want immediate changes in Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which according to them was the only act in which "mens rea" was not applicable. Since the Act came into being in 1988, much before the liberalisation of Indian economy and when private sector had little role, they say the provisions are outdated. In the changed circumstances most decisions taken by bureaucrats would result in benefit for some or the other private party.
It is in this context they say Section 13 of PCA makes civil servant criminally liable if his action resulted in pecuniary benefit to anyone and is deemed to be not in public interest. Moreover, under section 13(1) (d) (iii) the burden of proof in criminal cases rested with the public servant arraigned. The onus of satisfying judiciary that the decision did not benefit him, lies with the officer. In normal case the responsibility to prove such cases lies with the prosecution.
At the meeting held in Delhi last Saturday, the representatives of IAS officers associations of various states discussed the amendment to 1988 Act which is pending before the Select Committee of Parliament. They are hopeful that the “draconian” provisions will be either scrapped or modified significantly. Their hope gains strength from union finance minister Arun Jaitely recent statement where he emphasised on differentiating between "errors and corruption" in bureaucratic decision making. He said some of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) required a relook.
A couple of months ago a delegation of central IAS officers urged Jitender Singh, MoS in PMO to ensure honest and sincere officers are protected for taking bonafide decisions in public interest. Some decisions have already been taken by the Centre to protect bureaucrats. The provision to prosecute an officer, which was earlier available only at the level of joint secretary and above, is now sought to be made applicable for officers at every level.
Even in the case of IAS officers working in the state, the central government had revised the guidelines. In the event of an IAS officer being placed under suspension by a state government, the DoPT will have to be intimated within 24 hours. Similarly, the charges framed against the officer will also have to be intimated to DoPT within a period of 45 days. However, the IAS officers are not satisfied. They want adequate legal protection for taking decisions without the fear of vigilance cases.
