21 April 2011
C&AG's Constitutional Role are not for ensuring good governance and curbing corruption in administration. Therefore, the question how far C&AG succeeded in ensuring good governance and curbing corruption in Administration is an inapplicable question.
21 April 2011
C&AG is not meant for good governance, but to find the blackspots of and lapses in the governance of any Government organization and to report to the President of India upon which the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament takes action by summoning the heads of the concerned Government Department to explain their position.
Moreover, the role of C&AG is limited to the appropriation of the public money, misuse of financial delegations, improperiety in public expenditure etc., but not about good governance.
However, you can question the role of the Central Vigilance Commission, which instead of concentrating on good governance part of the Government organizations, just try to play the role of a catalyst by helping the bad and corrupt administrators, who just try to penalise mostly the innocent and sincere workers, by putting its stamp over whatever proposal the CVC receives from the Heads of the Organization. Still you can find their annual report full of boasts about punishing a long list of lower cadre officials. You can find only a very rare case in which any bureaucrat of high status would have been punished in spite of his deep involvement in corruption & nepotism. You won't also find even a single case where the CVC would have stated that they had rejected any disciplinary case on finding inappropriate chargesheets sent for approval by the heads of the organizations. You can also find even such cases, where the Disiplinary Authority would have disagreed with the CVC advice on some punishment to any employee after receiving findings of the inquiry, but CVC would have tried to insist on punishing the employee, as would have been proposed by the CVC.
Even in one case I found that in one case a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries from the CVC in his inquiry report used one and half page of the report even to defend the position of a witness from the side of the administration side, when he was ecxposed of corrupt practices by the Charged Officer during the inquiry proceedings.