Literally, the word ‘vigilance’ means nothing more than “alertness” or “watchfulness”. In the context in which this word is used in bureaucratic parlance, however, it has necessarily to be construed as “watchfulness” or “alertness” against deviant or unacceptable conduct or practice. It follows that the purpose of vigilance is not to create a fear psychosis in an organization, demotivate it officials or stifle decision making. The performance of vigilance functions would become dysfunctional if it has this effect. On the other hand, if such functions are performed with sensitivity, they might have the opposite effect of promoting probity and enhancing managerial efficiency and effectiveness at all levels. Vigilance mechanisms would then act as deterrent to misconduct and help officials to achieve results within the framework of their rules, regulations and norms. All this is only possible, however, if vigilance is regarded as an integral part of management.

Central Vigilance Commission

The Central Vigilance Commission was set up by the Government of India in Feb. 1964 on the recommendation of the Santhanam Commission under the Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution No.27/4/64-AVD dated 11th Feb. 1964.

In any case where it appears after a preliminary inquiry, that a public servant either acted or abstained from acting, with an improper or corrupt motive, the Commission advises the disciplinary authority on the action to be taken against the public servant concerned.

The jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission is co-terminus with the executive power of the Union. It extends to all employees of the Central Government. Out of practical considerations, however, currently, the Commission ordinarily advises on cases pertaining to gazetted officers at two stages: once, after the completion of the preliminary enquiry (Ist stage advice) and secondly, once again after the disciplinary enquiry is complete (2nd stage advice).

Director General of Income Tax (Vig) and Chief Vigilance Officer, CBDT

The Vigilance set-up of the Income Tax Department is headed by the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance). He is also the Chief Vigilance Officer of the organisation. He is responsible for taking the initial decision on complaints against Group-A officers. He is also required to maintain an up to date record of such complaints and their latest status, through the prescribed registers, for submission of quarterly reports to the CVC. All the complaints against Group-A officers are, therefore, required to be forwarded to him for registration in the CVO’s register as well as for further necessary action.

As CVO, he is required to examine and comment on all proposals where a reference to the CVC is required to be made. Apart from the officers posted in his headquarters, who assist him in initial processing of complaints and post disciplinary proceeding cases of Group-A officers, four regional Directorates of Income Tax (Vigilance) assist him in conduct of preliminary verifications or investigations in respect of allegations against Group A officers.. He makes all vigilance related references to CBDT, CVC, DOPT, UPSC etc., and puts up their respective advice for a decision by the Disciplinary Authority.

Regional Directorates of Income tax (Vig)

Four Directorates of Income Tax (Vigilance) assist the Director General of Income tax (Vig.) in the handling of vigilance matters pertaining to their respective regional jurisdictions. The designation, headquarters and jurisdiction of these four Directorates are as under:-
 

These Directorate process complaints against Group 'B' officers and also conduct preliminary verifications and investigations in respect of both Group-A and Group 'B' officers.