Vigilance has Registered 86 Cases in the State so far in five Years, 91.25 Lakhs caught from Bribery Officers

Vigilance has tightened its noose on corrupt and bribe taking officers and employees across the state. Vigilance has registered 86 cases against bribery officers and employees in five years in the state.

Vigilance has recovered more than Rs 91 lakh 25 thousand in these cases. Apart from this, vigilance has also registered six cases in the case of income-to-property. Recently, Vigilance has caught a big case of JOA IT paper leak.

Vigilance has recovered an amount of about Rs 20 lakh from the accused in the paper leak case of the examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.

Vigilance has so far registered 242 cases across the state in different cases including bribery, disproportionate assets, NDPS Act and Excise Act in five years.

If we talk about the year 2023, initially the Vigilance has caught two cases of bribery. In this, vigilance has caught an officer in Shimla DC office taking a bribe of one lakh rupees.

Apart from this, an employee of the Revenue Department has also been caught taking a bribe of six thousand in Nalagarh. Apart from this, 240 cases registered in five years have been registered.

In this, 28 cases have been registered in the year 2018, 61 in 2019, 48 in 2020, 42 in 2021 and 61 in 2022. In these cases, 84 cases of bribery have been registered. 70 lakh 19 thousand 36 rupees have been recovered in this.

Apart from this, 12 cases have been registered under the NDPS Act, three under the Excise Act, 47 under the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, six cases of disproportionate assets and 88 others. (hdm)

The name of the informer will be kept secret

On the other hand, ADG Vigilance Satwant Atwal Trivedi says that strict action is being taken against corrupt and bribe takers.

He has appealed to the people that if any officer or employee asks for money or any other demand for any work, then inform about it in the Vigilance Office. The ADG said that the name of the informer would be kept secret.

Exit mobile version