'Every Govt Declares It Is Against Corruption, But Reality Has Been Otherwise': Madras High Court Calls For Independent Vigilance Commissioner

The court added that corruption can be eradicated only through consistent action, and this could be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.

“Every government has been declaring that they are against corruption, however, the reality has been otherwise. Corruption is deep-rooted everywhere, which can be eradicated by dedicated and consistent action. That can be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department,” the court said.

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that at present, there was no separate Vigilance Commissioner for the State of Tamil Nadu and a senior officer heading a major sensitive department was holding the post of Vigilance Commissioner. The court remarked that a government which aims to be corruption-free should have an independent Vigilance Commissioner.

“The State Vigilance Commission is headed by the Vigilance Commissioner, who shall advise the government on the major administrative challenges, prevention of corruption in public services in general and the manner in which an individual cases of corruption that is brought to the light should be dealt with. However, there is no regular / permanent Vigilance Commissioner in the State and a senior officer heading the major and sensitive department is holding the post of Vigilance Commissioner as an additional post. The Government, which aims for corruption free governance, in the opinion of this court, shall have an independent Vigilance Commissioner, wholly concentrating on the Vigilance Commission's functioning,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a batch of cases which related to pending proceedings against government employees before various Tribunals for Disciplinary Proceedings.

The court noted that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings were established by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal) Rules, 1955. The court noted that these tribunals were performing dual functions – one as an enquiry authority under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal), Rules, 1955 and the other as an enquiry authority under Rule 17(b)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

The court added that these Tribunals were under the administrative control of the Vigilance Commissioner, who was responsible for reviewing and monitoring the enquiries pending before the Tribunals. The court also noted that a Government Order issued by the Human Resources (N) Management Department also specifies the time limit for processing the disciplinary proceedings, in which the maximum time limit is 1 year.

Based on reports received, the court noted that 27 enquiries were pending for more than 5 years, 8 enquiries were pending for more than 4 years, and 34 enquiries are pending for more than 3 years.

The court further noted that these Tribunals were headed by Judicial Officers till 1976, and they were replaced by administrative officers from the IAS officers and then by District Revenue Officers.

During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General assured the court that all the six Commissioners for Disciplinary Proceedings of the State have already been requested to increase the number of hearing days and to complete the enquiry in respect of the long pending cases expeditiously without further delay.

The court considered the issues and asked the Vigilance Commissioner to monitor the number of witnesses examined by the Tribunals everyday and to ensure that the witnesses are produced on time and Public Prosecutors are appearing regularly before the Tribunals. The court also directed the Tribunals to follow the time limit prescribed in the Government orders.

The court thus disposed of the petition by directing the tribunals to complete the disciplinary proceedings in the pleas in a time bound manner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader, Mr.E.K.Kumaresan, Mr.C.Raja, Mr.H.Mohamed Imran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. G. R. Sathish, Mr. R. Ramesh Mahadev, Mr. G. V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

Case No: WP(MD)Nos.35029, 35450, 36599 of 2025, 280 and 4802 of 2026