Anti-corruption law amended to protect officers for their bona fide mistakes; babus now expected to take bolder decisions

THE Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2018, paving the way for protecting honest officers, as the investigative agencies won’t now be able to probe a serving or a retired government officer without the prior sanction of the government. It’s a major departure of the earlier regime when a public servant could be investigated for taking a bad decision even as she did not receive any pecuniary benefits. The bill which was first tabled way back in 2013, was already passed by the Rajya Sabha. The IAS association and a number of senior bureaucrats including…

DoPT mistake would have made Sumant Narain an MHA director a “year ago”; department issues corrigendum

 Sumant Narain, 2000 batch Indian Audit and Accounts Service officer has recently been promoted as director in the ministry of home affairs (MHA). It would have passed as a routine appointment matter, had the official order issued on April 16 by government’s personal department, DoPT, not included a…

How a DoPT mistake makes an IAS officer 10 years junior to his batch-mates

ALAS! West Bengal cadre IAS officer Hem Kumar Pande, currently working as additional secretary in the ministry of environment and forests, has become 10 years junior to his batch-mates! Just hold your breath. In a DoPT order duely…

Probing Officers and Sanction for Prosecution: The story behind

DURING the last three and half years, 129 officers of the rank of joint secretary and above have come under the CBI net, out of which sanctions for prosecution are pending in case of 14 officers. With AK Antony-headed Group of Ministers now examining whether senior bureaucrats on deputation to public sector undertakings can also be provided the same protection under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, here are a few facts on what this sanction for prosecution is all about, how officers at times pay a price for “honest mistakes” and what the Supreme Court has to say about this provision: