REPORT - · PDF fileVIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ... that lower-level government officials can...

A

REPORT

ON

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION SURVEY

2006

VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA CUTTACK – 1.

CONTENTS.

Sl. No.

Subject. Page

1. Introduction 1-8

2. Chapter – I (Study design and methodology)

9-13

3. Chapter – II ( Perception on corruption)

14-31

4. Chapter – III ( Citizens' experience on corruption)

32-40

5. Chapter – IV (Corruption in Govt.Deptts.)

41-83

6. Chapter – V (Approach and action by Nodal Officers)

84-92

7. Chapter – VI (Approach and action by Secretariat Officers)

93-100

8. Chapter – VII (Reference Group’s perception on corruption)

101-107

9. Chapter – VIII (Views on performance of Vigilance Deptt.)

108-116

10. Annexure – (i) Respondent Profile. 117-122

(ii) Survey tools (Questionnaire) 123-138

VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 1 -

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006

Introduction Corruption has become all pervasive and endemic affecting different

walks of life. No country in the world is free from its spread and impact. The craze

for materialistic values under the growing impact of aggressive consumerism and

market forces has contributed for its rapid growth. At present, it has emerged as

the biggest challenge for ‘Rule of Law’. The magnitude of the problem has invited

the attention of scholars, activists and governments everywhere. A global

consensus is emerging to curb this unhealthy trend that vitiates the processes of

distributive justice, citizen’s rights and equitable development.

Developed countries with very strong democratic ethos, transparent

governance structures, powerful media, vibrant civil society institutions, organized

citizen watch processes and effective enforcement machineries have succeeded

in large measure in keeping this menace under check. On the contrary, the

situation is worse among the underdeveloped and developing countries where the

means to ensure transparency and accountability are weak.

A number of studies have established the direct link between

corruption with poor governance culture and practices in third world countries. The

most authentic and widely accepted reports published by Transparency

International confirm this trend. The World Corruption Watch Forum on the basis

of a very objective criteria and scientific methodology has ranked the countries

with reference to the magnitude and volume of corruption. Obviously, the gulf

between developed and underdeveloped/ developing countries is very wide in

terms of incidence and vulnerability to corruption.

There are many cross-country studies that try to explain the

consequences of corruption and poor governance for economic growth and well

being. Richer countries, on average, have less reported corruption and better

functioning governments. The same holds true for countries with high levels of the

Human Development Index, a measure that includes measures of health and

educational attainment as well as a logarithmic measure of income.



For democracy to survive, all political systems need to mediate the

relationship between private wealth and public power. Those that fail risk a

dysfunctional government captured by wealthy interests. Corruption is one

symptom of such failure with private willingness-to-pay adversely affecting public

goals. Private individuals and business firms pay to get routine services to avoid

harassment and get the work done in time. They pay to limit their taxes, avoid

costly regulations, obtain contracts at inflated prices, and get concessions and

privatized firms at low prices.

“Corruption” is a term whose meaning shifts with the speaker. It can

describe the corruption of the young from watching violence on television or refer

to political decisions that provide narrow benefits to one’s constituents in the form,

say, of a new road through the district. In short, speakers use the term to cover a

range of actions that they find undesirable. The common definition of corruption

describes as the “misuse of public power for private or political gain,” recognizing

that “misuse” must be defined in terms of some standard.

Many corrupt activities under this definition are illegal in most

countries — for example, paying and receiving bribes, fraud, embezzlement, self

dealing, conflicts of interest, and providing a quid pro quo in return for campaign

gifts. However, part of the policy debate turns on where to draw the legal line and

how to control borderline phenomena, such as conflicts of interest, which many

political systems fail to regulate.

Researchers at the World Bank estimate that worldwide bribery

totals at least $1 trillion per year, just over 3% of world income in 2002. The Bank

staff extrapolated from firm and household level data contained in their own

country-level surveys so the number represents an order of magnitude with a

large margin of error. It is an estimate of the volume of bribes, not the impact of

corruption on economic growth and global income.

Pointing to the magnitude of the problem, however, does not

determine solutions. Because of the diversity of circumstances that produce

corruption and poor governance, it is difficult to propose global approaches.

Nevertheless, one needs to recognize that improving governance in individual



countries will require carefully tailored policies carried out with the hard work and

personal commitment of those on the ground.

Those who benefit from a corrupt status quo will try to impede

reform. Improvements in human wellbeing seldom occur spontaneously but,

instead, require government actions to complement private efforts. Governments

that waste resources through malfeasance or inadvertence are a drag on growth

and undermine the achievement of other goals. High levels of corruption produce

a more unequal distribution of income and perpetuate poverty. There is a U-

shaped relationship between corruption and income distribution. If corruption is

very low inequality is low and vice versa.

Political and bureaucratic corruption occurs where greed and self-

interest interact with government institutions. However, different factors create

corrupt incentives in each case, and hence they need different policy responses.

Corruption, standing alone, is not comparable to hunger, disease, and violence

among the world’s problems. However, if the weak government capacities of

which it is a symptom persist, targeted policies will fail in weak and dysfunctional

states.

This is especially so when a central state is under the control of a

narrow group that does not operate in the interest of most of the population.

Government may also be dysfunctional because it is excessively decentralized so

that lower-level government officials can establish local monopolies free of

oversight from higher levels of government. Rather than deal with the problem of

concentrated political power head on, options should focus on ways to constrain

and limit such power while at the same time acknowledging the value of a

competent, well-functioning state.

Several detailed studies have examined the way local involvement in

public programs can enhance efficiency and increase benefits. They show that it

can be done, but also provide numerous cautionary tales of poorly designed

programs. One must concentrate on the conditions for successful decentralized

programs, recognizing the need to guard against the capture of state structures by

those seeking illegal enrichment.



Indian Scenario India Corruption Study 2005 Report by Transparency International

India in alliance with Centre for Media Studies, New Delhi makes the following

startling revelations on corruption in India. The eleven public services covered in

this study are: Police (Crime/Traffic), Judiciary, Land Administration, Municipal

Services, Govt. Hospitals, Electricity (Consumers) PDS (Ration Card/Supplies),

Income Tax (Individual Assesses), Water Supply, Schools (up to 12th) and Rural

Financial Institutions (Farmers).

According to the study findings-:

Common citizens of the country pay a bribe of Rs. 21,068 crores while

availing one or more of the eleven public services in a year. As high as 62

percent of citizens think that the corruption is not a hearsay, but they in fact

had the firsthand experience of paying bribe or “using a contact” to get a job

done in a public office.

The problem of corruption in public services affecting day to day needs of

citizens is far more serious than it is being realized and calls for all out

initiatives on the part of Government as well as civil society. Putting together

corruption in all public services involving individual common citizens, will

work out significantly high. Until now, this has never been reliably estimated

specific to public service.

Three-fourth of citizens thinks that the level of corruption in public services is

increasing in the last one year (2004-2005). Hardly ten percent think that

such corruption is on the decline. There are no significant differences

between the States in the perceptions about the extent of corruption or in

their experience with such corruption.

One-third to half of the compulsions leading to such petty corruption involving

the common man could be addressed and also removed with simple

initiatives including introduction of technologies.



One-third of citizens think that “both the officials concerned and the users” of

these eleven services know how much to be paid as “extra” to get a job done

or attended to.

One-sixth of public think that citizens/users of Government services

themselves are responsible for corruption. They believe that there is no

active and sustained civil society movement. The efforts are more sporadic,

localized and short-lived and have never acquired a character of a larger

movement.

One-third of citizens think that corruption is “an obvious fact” where both

giver and taker are familiar with modalities.

ESTIMATES OF PETTY CORRUPTION (India Corruption Study 2005)

Services

COST OF BRIBE PAID (RS. IN CRORES)

Schools (Up to 12th) 4137

Police (Crime/Traffic) 3899 Land Administration 3126 Judiciary 2630 Electricity (Consumers) 2169 Govt. Hospitals 2017 RFI (Farmers) 1543 Municipal Services 550 Income Tax (Individual Assesses) 496 PDS (Ration card/supplies) 358 Water Supply 143

Total 21068 Source: TII-CMS Study 2005

According to this survey, relatively Police stands out high on the

corruption index. Judiciary (lower Courts) and Land Administration are rated next

only to Police. The corruption in Government Hospitals is mostly to do with non



availability of medicines, getting admission, consultations with doctors and availing

diagnostic services. Despite reforms, electricity service figure high on corruption

index. PDS figures lower in the corruption index score because the problem of

common man dealing with services is more to do with leakages in the system

rather than direct monetary corruption.

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO PAID BRIBES

(Last one year)

Service No. of Households (Fig. in crores)

Govt. Hospitals 3.0 Police (Crime/Traffic) 2.5 Electricity (Consumers) 2.1 Schools (Up to 12th) 1.5 PDS (Ration card/supplies) 1.5 Judiciary 1.3 Land Administration 1.2 RFI (Farmers) 0.78 Income Tax (Individual Assesses) 0.24 Municipal Services 0.22 Water Supply 0.20

Source: TII-CMS Study 2005

RANKING OF STATES BY DEGREE OF CORRUPTION

State Composite Index

Rank

State Composite Index

Rank

Kerala 240 1 Delhi 496 11 Himachal Pradesh 301 2 Tamil Nadu 509 12 Gujarat 417 3 Haryana 516 13 Andhra Pradesh 421 4 Jharkhand 520 14 Maharashtra 433 5 Assam 542 15 Chattisgarh 445 6 Rajasthan 543 16 Punjab 459 7 Karnataka 576 17 West Bengal 461 8 Madhya Pradesh 584 18



Orissa 475 9 J & K 655 19 Uttar Pradesh 491 10 Bihar 695 20

Note: High Score = more corrupt Source: TII-CMS Study 2005 Going by composite ranking of States on corruption involving

common citizen and in the context of eleven public services, Kerala stands out as

the least corrupt State in India. Bihar, on the other, is the most corrupt State.

Jammu & Kashmir is next only to Bihar. In fact, perhaps not surprisingly, on all

parameters and in the context of all the eleven services, Bihar stands out far-

ahead as the most corrupt State. Himachal Pradesh perhaps is less corrupt –

even compared to States like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or Gujarat. Madhya

Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Assam, on the other, also are on the top of

corruption. This unique study for its scope and sample size takes into account

both perceptions, which are as important as actual experience particularly in the

case of these public services, and experience of actually paying bribe to get

attended to or serviced by these public services. An overwhelming majority of citizens are vocal about absence of

transparency and accountability in the delivery of these services. They are full of

anguish and at times some anger at the state of affairs. It is evident from annual

CMS surveys on corruption that use of technology at the front-end of those offices

is likely to bring down corruption with increase in transparency. Citizens’ Charter, promising certain performance standard on the

basis of “Where to Go, How to proceed”, is a recent initiative in most of these

services. But the Charter as it is made out is neither directly relevant nor are

citizens aware of such a thing, as this study brings out. In fact, not all concerned in

the public services know about Citizens’ Charter or the promises made therein.

The study brings out the urgency of activating Citizens ’Charter and making it

directly relevant and implementation being reported back to public.



This study acquires added relevance in the context of more recent

Right to Information Act. With the Act already in force, public utilities and services

shall need to gear up to increase transparency in decision making.

Corruption Perception Study Orissa is inspired by the good work

being done to expose corruption and find out effective measures to combat it in all

its forms and ramifications. This attempt is first of its kind in Orissa and holds a

good deal of promise to redeem public life. This assumes further significance as

huge investments are being made to rescue the state from the clutches of abject

poverty and underdevelopment. The study will serve its purpose if the learning is

utilized to take remedial measure and check corruption in the state.



CHAPTER – I

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Vigilance Directorate, Orissa, Cuttack undertook sample survey on

Corruption in all the Districts of Orissa with Joint Collaboration of Directorate of

Economics and Statistics(DES),Orissa and Centre for Youth & Social

Development (CYSD), Bhubaneswar in the first quarter of 2006. DFID India

extended warm support for the study. Field survey was under taken by the

experience and well versed technical staff of the DES. Technical guidance was

extended by the high level officers of DES & CYSD, Bhubaneswar.

Quite undoubtedly, Corruption Perception Study is the largest

corruption survey ever undertaken in the state with a sample of 3713 respondents

spread across all the 30 districts of the state. The study covered 53 blocks, 106

villages and key government departments. Besides nodal officers in block and

district headquarters, the researchers gathered information from 90 middle and

junior level officers of the secretariat. Coverage of professionals, civil society

representatives and senior citizens from all walks of life added strength to the

outcome. The study has focused on petty corruption which reportedly is on the

increase. It also looks into collusive aspects of corruption in the public services

and has come up with service specific suggestions to reduce corruption. Most

importantly, it visits the issues from both user and provider perspectives eliciting

facts of the matter to explain the occurrence and tenacity of the corrupt practices,

additionally, suggesting measures to mitigate and address the situation. Key Objectives The study seeks to contribute to the larger goal of improved

governance and transparent administration that remain loyal to the cause of the

citizenry guarding them from the terrible consequences of corrupt practices which

subvert the democratic system and basic human rights.



The specific objectives are to-:

• Assesses people’s perceptions on corruption. • Identify spread of corruption with reference to rural and urban areas. • Document experiences of citizens with regard to corrupt practices. • Identify instances of collusive corruption. • Measure intensity of corruption in terms of levels Viz. High, Medium &

Bottom. • Rank government departments as per degree of corruption. • Identify specific types of corruption and analyze the causes. • Asses the role of middlemen/powerful influence in perpetuating corruption. • Assess the stakeholder perceptions on future of corruption. • Assess the stakeholder perceptions on effectiveness of official drives to curb

corruption. • Suggest measures to strengthen preparedness and strategies to combat

corruption. Methodology The study lay due emphasis on methodological and operational

issues guarding against temptation to be content with recording the popular

notions on corruption. To achieve that, a series of tool box exercises were

conducted involving subject experts and consultants. Due care was taken to make

the sample adequately representative by covering respondents from different

socio-economic and occupational strata as well as official establishments. Universe The universe includes all the 30 districts in the state of Orissa. Sampling Sampling has been done meticulously to have adequate

representation of all concerned stakeholders. It has been done on random basis

to prevent bias. Number of units and respondents vary from district to district with

reference to respective population, location, scheduled population, literacy and

level of urbanization.

The detail samples are as follows:



Rural:

Rural respondents are drawn from 106 villages under 53 sampled blocks

and exit poll participants.

The representation of respondents is determined in accordance with the

following principles;

Inclusion of 1 Block in the sample for District having population less

than 10 lakhs.

Inclusion of 2 Blocks in the sample for District having population

Plus 10 lakhs to 20 lakhs.

Inclusion of 3 Blocks in the sample for District having population

more than 20 lakhs.

The representation of respondents is fixed at 7 per village.

The rural sample targets 1928 respondents of which 742 are villagers

expressing views on corruption whereas 1186 are participants of exit polls

held at block and district headquarters.

The actual selection of blocks, villages and respondents other than exit poll

participants have been selected on random basis in keeping with standard

stratified random sampling guidelines.

Urban: Urban sample included a total of 1785 respondents as per the

details mentioned below:

♦ 210 traders having trading units/ business farms such as Medicine

Stores, Grocery Shop, Fabrics/Cloth Stores, Construction Farms,

Transporters, Fancy Stores, Electric & electronics Stores,

Manufacturing units and Street Vendors.

♦ 885 exit poll participants visiting key offices/departments like Blocks,

Tahasils/R.I. offices. Road Transport Offices, Police Stations,

Municpality/N.A.Cs, Sub-registrar Office, Treasury/ Sub-Treasury,

Land Acquisition Office, Bhubaneswar Development Authority and

Cuttack development Authority.



♦ 500 Nodal officers of Block and district Headquarters.

♦ 90 officials of State Secretariat, and ♦ 100 reference Group Members drawn from different from spectrum of

civil society. Respondent Category:

Citizens living in rural and urban areas Beneficiaries/ applicants of Government Schemes Users of Public Services Members of Self Help Groups and other Community Based Organizations. Persons in Government and Private Service Persons in Trade and Business Retired Government employees Civil Society Leaders/Representatives Self-employed persons Student/Unemployed persons.

Tools for Data Collection: Respondent specific Questionnaires were developed and field tested

to make those most effective for data collection. Experienced and qualified

officials of the Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Government of Orissa

were trained to conduct field surveys with utmost precision without influencing the

interaction processes by personal value judgments. A proper supervision and

validation exercise was mounted to prevent slackness and reduce margin of error.

Separate set of questionnaires were prepared for each category of respondent as

per the details mentioned below:

Q. No. 1 – Rural citizen & Owners of Trade Units in rural areas

Q. No. 2 – Exit poll clients visiting offices to for different works

Q. No. 3 –Nodal officers and staff members of sampled offices

Q. No. 4 – Officials of various Departments of Orissa Secretariat.

Q. No. 5 – Reference Group Members



Training of Investigators: The senior officials of the department organized a one day training

programme for the investigators to explain the objectives and methodology of the

study. Each questionnaire was discussed at length to clarify doubts. Member

Secretary, faculty members of CYSD and senior officers of Directorate of

Statistics and Economics, Government of Orissa supplemented the participatory

discussions concerning the study. Limitations of the study:

♪ The subject being very sensitive, the respondents felt hesitant to respond

♪ The diversified respondent profile with varying degree of experience and

qualification posed problem in standardizing open ended responses.

♪ The visit of investigators from vigilance department was viewed with

suspicion by some respondents despite painstaking explanation that there

was no reason to fear since it was a study not connected with raid in any

form whatsoever.

♪ Many nodal officers declined to respond on the ground that there was no

instruction from higher authorities. Some of them could be convinced finally

with repeated clarifications.

♪ Fear of being exposed and harassed prevented some exit poll participants

to reveal details on corruption experienced by them. The promise of

confidentiality by the department could not convince and restore confidence

among all.

♪ Most of the respondents did not like to reveal the amount paid as bribe or

name the person taking bribe.

♪ Limited exposure of respondents on various departments affected the

ranking of departments and levels in terms of degree and intensity.

♪ Many respondents and particularly officials preferred to lecture a lot about

corruption but were not interested to share facts as per question.



CHAPTER – II

Perception on Corruption

Corruption as a phenomenon is perceived differently by people

depending on individual experience and exposure. There is no uniform

understanding on its nature, intensity and spread. There may be persons who are

not about of this since they lack direct experience. Corruption perception

assessment assumes added significance in states where a large section of the

people do not interact with the system and hence have no idea as to what type of

corrupt practices are actually subverting fair play, equity, distributive justice,

efficient service delivery without manipulation, fear and favour.

The table below illustrates the awareness levels on corruption in

districts of Orissa.

Ranking of Districts as per Awareness level of Rural Citizens (In Percentage)

Name of District Aware Not Aware No Response Rank Jagatsingpur 96 4 0 1 Balasore 95 5 0 2 Khurda 89 0 11 3 Puri 89 11 0 3 Ganjam 86 12 2 4 Jajpur 86 7 7 4 Kendrapara 86 14 0 4 Cuttack 84 14 2 5 Keonjhar 82 14 4 6 Bargarh 79 21 0 7 Sambalpur 79 21 0 7 Bolangir 72 21 7 8 Bhadrak 71 18 11 9 Jharsuguda 71 29 0 9 Rayagada 71 29 0 9 Subarnapur 71 21 7 9 Angul 69 31 0 10 Dhenkanal 69 28 3 10 Koraput 64 36 0 11 Nabarangpur 64 25 11 11 Nayagarh 64 36 0 11 Nuapada 64 36 0 11 Sundargarh 64 36 0 11 Kalahandi 62 28 10 12 Boudh 57 43 0 13 Deogarh 57 29 14 13 Gajapati 57 43 0 13 Kandhamal 57 43 0 13 Mayurbhanj 53 35 12 14 Malkangiri 50 29 21 15



Awareness Trend line

96%

82%64%50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Percentage 50% 64% 82% 96%

Malkangiri Nuapada Keonjhar Jagatsinghpur

Orissa has a very diverse social fabric. It has both advanced and

backward districts defined by specific demographic and economic characteristics.

The state data on awareness level reveals that while tribal majority Malkanagiri is

placed at the bottom in terms of awareness on corruption, the coastal

Jagatsinghpur district tops the state with 96% of citizens being aware.

The study conducted awareness mapping on corruption involving

key stakeholders. The outcome is a pointer to the extent to which different

categories of people are familiar with corruption. The findings are presented

below: Awareness level among rural citizens

736 villagers selected randomly as per sampling design from 30

districts of the state participated in the awareness mapping exercise. The

sampling procedure ensured represented virtually all rural population segments.

74% of rural citizens in the state are aware about corruption. 22% admit that they

are not aware. Only 4% of the respondents expressed inability to answer this

question.

Awareness Level

22%

74%

4%

100%

0%20% 40% 60% 80%

100% 120%

1

Not Aware- Aware- No Response- Total-



Awareness level among trade unit owners

205 traders selected randomly as per sampling design from 30

districts of the state participated in the awareness mapping exercise. The

sampling procedure ensured represented virtually all trade sectors in urban areas.

78% of traders in the state are aware about corruption.

20% admit that they are not aware. Only 2% of the respondents

expressed inability to answer this question. The assessment result may be

accepted as quite reasonable since all traders do not face situations where they

have to deal with corruption.

Awareness level among exit poll participants

Awareness Level

10%

82%

8%

100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Not Aware-193 Aware-1645 No Response-157 Total-1995

Exit poll participants are those who visited a government office to get

a work done. Unlike rural citizens and traders, they have a chance of facing bribe

demand. 1995 persons visiting Block/ District offices in all the 30 districts of the

state were interviewed. 82% of exit poll participants are found aware about

corruption. 10% admit that they are not aware. Only 8% of the respondents

expressed inability to answer this question. The percentage of no response may

be attributed to fear that if they divulge the prospects of getting the work done may

be affected.

Awareness level

20%

78%

2%

100%

0%20% 40% 60% 80%

100% 120%

Value

Not Aware-41 Aware-160 No Response-4 Total-205



Awareness level among nodal officers

Awareness Level

67%21% 12%

100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

ValueNot Aw are-325 Aw are-104 NoResponse-58 Total-487

487 nodal officers participated in the awareness mapping exercise.

21% of nodal officers in the state are aware about corruption in their respective

offices. 67 % admit that they are not aware. Only 12% of the respondents

expressed inability to answer this question.

Awareness level among secretariat officers

Awareness Level

31%

69%

100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

ValueNot Aware-28 Aware-62 Total-90

90 secretariat officers participated in the awareness mapping

exercise. They represented different government departments housed in the

secretariat. 69% are aware about corruption in various government departments

of the secretariat. 31 % admit that they are not aware.

It is good to note that there is not a single case of no response in this category.

Awareness level among reference group members

Awareness 100%

100%

Reference Group Members-29

29 reference group of persons participated in the awareness

mapping exercise. The group included representation from Media, Academia,



NGOs, Lawyers and Senior Retired Government Servants. As per the responses

received, all of them are aware about corruption.

There exist gaps in the awareness level on corruption among

respondents. While all the reference group members (100%) are aware about

corruption, 82% exit poll participants, 78 % traders, 74% villagers affirm

awareness. 69% secretariat officers and just 21% nodal officers of different

government offices reported awareness about corruption in their respective

offices.

RANKING OF OFFICES/DEPTT. BY DEGREE OF CORRUPTION Rural Citizens

% of Respondents reporting High

67%

60%55% 54% 53%

50%46%

13%

27%

33%

39%40%43%44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Bloc

kPW

D

Reven

ue

Taha

sil

Polic

e & Ir

rigat

ion

Excis

e

Elec

tricit

y

FS &

CW

Trea

sury

Tran

spor

t

Educ

ation

Commer

cial T

ax

Fore

stBa

nk

67% villagers point out Block office for high degree of corruption.

60% point to PWD, 55% to Revenue, 54% to Tahsil, 53% to Police and Irrigation

office, 50% to Excise, 46% to electricity, 44% to civil supply, 43% to treasury, 40%

to Transport, 39% to Education, 33% to Commercial tax, 27% to Forest and 13%

to Banks for High degree of corruption. In other words, as expected many villagers

are not aware about corruption in offices with which they have very limited

exposure.



% of Respondents reporting Medium

16%17%18%22%

28%29%33%

35%36%38%39%40%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

PWD

Taha

sil

Health

/Trea

sury

Polic

e/ Fo

rest

Educ

ation

FS &

CW

Tran

spor

t

Reven

ue

Comm

ercia

l Tax

Irriga

tion

Elec

tricit

yBlo

ck

40% villagers report PWD for medium degree of corruption. 39%

report Tahsil, 38% report Health and Treasury, 36% report Police and Forest, 35%

report Education, 33% report Civil Supply, 29% report Transport, 28% report

Revenue, 22% report Commercial Tax, 18% report Irrigation, 17% report

Electricity and 16% report Banks for medium degree of corruption.

% of Respondents reporting Low29%

25% 24% 22%19% 18%

14% 12% 11% 10% 10%5% 2%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

Electri

city/E

xcise

Bank

Fore

st

FS &

CW

Health

Irriga

tion

Tran

spor

t

Block

Reven

ue

Educa

tion

Trea

sury

Police

Taha

sil

29 % villagers report Electricity and Excise for Low degree of

corruption. 25% report banks, 24% report Forest, 22% report Civil Supply, 19%

report Health, 18% report Irrigation, 14% report Transport, 12% report Block, 11%

report Revenue, 10% report Education and Treasury, 5% report Police and only

2% report Tahsil for Low degree of corruption.



TRADERS


21%39%40%42%42%45%52%52%57%59%67%69%

88%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Block

Tran

spor

t

Irriga

tion

Commer

cial T

ax

Trea

sury

Police

Fore

st

FS &

CW

Health

Excise

Electri

city

Reven

ue

Taha

sil

88% traders point out Block office for high degree of corruption. 69%

point to Transport, 67% to Irrigation, 59% to Commercial tax, 57% to Treasury,

52% to Police and Forest, 45% to Civil Supply, 42% to Health and Excise, 40% to

Electricity, 39% to Revenue and 21% to Tahsil for High degree of corruption.


4%5%

8%15%17%18%

24%25%26%27%34%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Educa

tion

Taha

sil

Health

Tran

spor

t

Reven

uePW

D

Commer

cial T

ax

Police

Trea

sury

Bank

Block

/For

est

34% traders report Education for medium degree of corruption. 27%

report Tahsil, 26% report Health, 25% report Transport, 24% report Revenue,

24% report PWD, 17% report Commercial Tax, 15% report Police, 8% report

Treasury, 5% report Banks and 4% report Block and Forest offices for medium

degree of corruption.



NODAL OFFICERS


11%15%17%

28%32%33%

50%50%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Tran

sport

CDA

Land

Acq

uisitio

n

Bloc

k

Taha

sil

Trea

sury

Mun

icipality

Reve

nue

50% Nodal officers point out Transport office (TRO) for high degree

of corruption. 50% of them also mention Cuttack Development Authority (CDA),

33% point to Land Acquisition, 32% to Block, 28% to Tahsil, 17% to Treasury,

15% to Municipality and 11% to Tahsil for High degree of corruption.


17%18%23%25%26%

33%33%33%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

Taha

sil

Reven

ue

Land

Acq

uisiti

on

Block

Tran

spor

t

Munici

palit

y

Polic

e

Trea

sury

33% Nodal Officers report Tahsil, Revenue and Land Acquisition

offices for medium degree of corruption. 26% report Block, 25% report Transport,

23% report Municipality, 18% report Police and 17% mention Treasury for medium

degree of corruption.



% of Respondents reporting Low

25%33%42%50%56%62%67%

82%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Polic

e

Trea

sury

Munici

pality

Reve

nue

CDA

Bloc

k

Land

Acq

uisit

ion

Tran

spor

t

82% Nodal Officers report police for low degree of corruption. 67%

report Treasury, 62% report Municipality, 56% report Revenue, 50% report CDA,

42% report Block, 33% report Land Acquisition and 25% mention Transport for

low degree of corruption.

SECRETARIAT OFFICERS


67%67%67%69%

71%71%71%72%

78%79%

60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%

Excis

e

Wate

r Res

ource

s

Wor

ks/P

WD

GA

H &

UD

Stee

l & M

ines

Scho

ol Edu

catio

n

Tran

spor

t

Energ

y

Fore

st

79% Secretariat officers point out Excise office for high degree of

corruption. 78% of them also mention Water Resources for high corruption.

Similarly, 72% report Works (PWD), 71% report General Administration, Housing

& Urban Development and Steel & Mines, 69% report Education and 67% report

Transport, Forest and Energy for High degree of corruption.


32%33%33%36%36%40%43%50%50%60%

67%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Indus

tries

Plan

ning &

Cord

Reven

ue

W &

CD

Agric

ulture

ST &

SC D

evt

Health

FS & C

W

Higher

Educ

ation

Com Tax RD



67% Secretariat officers point out Industries for medium degree of

corruption. 60% of them mention Planning and Coordination, 50% report

Revenue, Women & Child Development, 43% report Agriculture, 40% report ST &

SC Development, 36% report Health and Civil Supply, 33% report Higher

Education and Commercial Tax and finally 32% report Rural Development for

medium degree of corruption.

% of Respondents reporting Low

12%15%17%17%17%

20%20%

29%33%33%33%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

Financ

e

Reven

ue

W &

CD

Agricu

lture

ST &

SC D

evt

Plan

ning &

Cor

dHE

Trans

port

Fore

st

Health PR

33% Secretariat officers point out Finance, Revenue and Women &

Child Development for low degree of corruption. 29% of them also mention

Agriculture for low corruption. Similarly, 20% report ST & SC Development &

Planning and Coordination, 17% report Higher Education, Transport and Forest,

15% report Health and 12% report Panchayati Raj for low degree of corruption

REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS SERVICE SECTOR

Perceived Degree of Corruption in Percentage

Office/ Department High Medium Low No corruption

No Response

Police 62 38 0 0 0 Transport 56 22 15 0 7 Elementary Education 36 39 25 0 0 Health 36 54 11 0 0 Cooperatives 36 43 18 4 0 Higher Education 14 61 25 0 0



In service sector, 62% Reference Group Members point out police

for high level of corruption, followed by 56% saying Transport, 36% saying

Elementary Education, Health and Cooperatives. Only 14% admit high corruption

in Higher Education institutions.

UTILITY SECTOR

Perceived Degree of Corruption in Percentage Office/ Department High Medium Low No

corruption No

Response

FS &CW 75 21 4 0 0

Urban Local Body 54 36 7 0 4

Electricity 29 57 14 0 0

Water Supply (PHED) 18 54 25 0 4

In utility sector, 75% Reference Group Members point out Food

Supply and Consumer Welfare department for high level of corruption, followed by

54% saying Urban Local bodies, 29% saying Electricity. Only 18% admit high

corruption in Public Health and Engineering Department.

REVENUE & LICENSING SECTOR


corruption No

Response

Excise 86 10 3 0 0

RTO 75 18 7 0 0

Land Registration 71 21 7 0 0

Commercial Taxes 70 26 0 0 4

Tahasil & RI 44 56 0 0 0

Industry (DIC) 15 38 38 0 8 In Revenue and Licensing Sector, 86% Reference Group Members

point out Excise for high level of corruption, followed by 75% saying Transport

(RTO), 71% saying Land Registration, 70% saying Commercial Tax and 44%

saying Tahsil. Only 15% admit high corruption in Industry (DIC) Department.



The responses and results in this category sharply differ from

perception by villagers, traders, exit poll participants, nodal officers and secretariat

officers. This only indicates the wider exposure of reference group and mature

understanding of magnitude of corruption in different sectors. Obviously, Excise,

RTO office, Land Registration office and Commercial Tax Department have

attracted similar rank score from the reference group members.

WORKS & CONTRACT SECTOR


corruption No

Response

Public Works 89 11 0 0 0

Water Resources 78 19 4 0 0

Block (PR) 48 48 4 0 0

DRDA (PR) 37 59 4 0 0

Rural Works 37 59 4 0 0

In Works and Contract Sector, 89% Reference Group Members

point out Public Works Department for high level of corruption, followed by 78%

saying Water Resources, 48% saying Block, 37% saying DRDA. 37% admit high

corruption in Rural Works Department. MISCELLANEOUS SECTOR

Perceived Degree of Corruption in Percentage

Office/ Department High Medium Low No corruption

No Response

Forest 57 36 4 0 4

Agriculture 11 54 32 0 4

Business farms 8 54 31 0 8

NGOs 50 25 18 0 7

In Miscellaneous Sector, 57% Reference Group Members point out

Forest Department for high level of corruption, followed by 11% saying

Agriculture. While 8% consider Business farms as corrupt, as high as 50% point

out high level of corruption among NGOs.



As revealed in the foregoing analysis a great deal of divergence

exists in the perception of different categories of respondents on government

offices and departments. Only a few comparisons are presented below across the

stakeholders, since it is not possible to compare all the views expressed for want

of uniformity in reference to offices and departments. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING HIGH DEGREE OF CORRUPTION Public Works Department

89%

60%72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Series1 60% 72% 89%

Villagers Secretariat Officers Reference Group

60% Villagers, 72%Secretariat Officers and 89% Reference Group

Members report high level of corruption in Public Works Department.

Water Resources Department

78%78%67%

54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Series1 54% 67% 78% 78%

Villagers Traders Secretariat Officers Reference Group

54% Villagers, 67% traders, 78%Secretariat Officers and 78%

Reference Group Members report high level of corruption in Water Resources

Department.

Excise Department

86%

50%

42%

79%

0%

50%

100%

Series1 50% 42% 79% 86%

Villagers Traders Secretariat Reference Group



50% Villagers, 42% traders, 79%Secretariat Officers and 86%

Reference Group Members report high level of corruption in Excise Department.

Block Office

88%

48%64%

32%

67%

0%

50%

100%

Series1 67% 88% 32% 64% 48%

Villagers Traders Nodal Officer Secretariat Reference Group

67% Villagers, 88% traders,32% Nodal Officers, 64% Secretariat

Officers and 48% Reference Group Members report high level of corruption in

Block office. The divergence level is very high and may be subject to degree of

direct exposure with the working of the office.

Transport (RTO) Office

56%

67%

50%

69%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Series1 40% 69% 50% 67% 56%

Villagers Traders Nodal Officer Secretariat Reference Group

40% Villagers, 69% traders,50% Nodal Officers, 67% Secretariat

Officers and 56% Reference Group Members report high level of corruption in

Transport (RTO) office.

Police Department

62%54% 52%

40%50%60%70%

Series1 54% 52% 62%

Villagers Traders Reference Group



54% Villagers, 52% traders and 62% Reference Group Members

report high level of corruption in police department. Nodal and secretariat officers

did not comment on corruption in police department.

Tahsil Office

54%44%

28%21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Series1 54% 21% 28% 44%

Villagers Traders Nodal Officers Reference Group

54% Villagers, 21% traders, 28% Nodal officers and 44% Reference

Group Members report high level of corruption in Tahsil office. Secretariat officers

did not comment on the issue.

Sub Registrar Office

44%

17%

33%39%55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Series1 55% 39% 33% 17% 44%

Villagers Traders Nodal Officers Secretariat Reference Group

55% Villagers, 39% traders, 33% Nodal officers, 17% Secretariat

Officers and 44% Reference Group Members report high level of corruption in Sub

Registrar office dealing with registration of land.

Treasury

17%

57%43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Series1 43% 57% 17%

Villagers Traders Nodal Officers



43% Villagers, 57% traders and 17% Nodal officers report high level

of corruption in Treasury. Secretariat officers and Reference Group members did

not comment on treasury.

School and Mass Education Department

37%

69%59%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Series1 39% 59% 69% 37%

Villagers Traders Secretariat Officers Reference Group

39% Villagers, 59% traders, 69% Secretariat officers and 37%

Reference Group Members report high level of corruption in School and Mass

Education Department. Nodal officers did not comment on the issue.

Stakeholder perception on petty corruption

Category Responses Acceptable % Not Acceptable % Don’t

Know %

Rural Citizens 736 228 31 459 62 49 7

Traders 205 78 38 115 56 12 6

Exit poll Participants 1995 577 29 1321 66 97 5

Total 2936 883 30 1885 65 158 5

A majority of the respondents do not approve petty corruption. It is

not acceptable to 62% villagers, 56% traders and 66% exit poll participants. Only

31% villagers, 38% traders and 29% exit poll participants say it is acceptable. Stakeholder perception on link between low salary & corruption Category Responses Yes % No % Don’t

Know %

Rural Citizens 736 175 24 494 67 67 9

Traders 205 41 20 152 74 12 6

Exit poll Participants 1995 307 15 1494 75 194 10

Total 2936 523 18 2140 73 273

9



An overwhelming majority of the respondents do not think that there is a

link between low salary and petty corruption. Only 24% villagers, 20% traders and

15% exit poll participants accept such a link.

Perception on more harmful level of corruption

Category Responses Opinion on more harmful level of Corruption

Low % High % Both % Don’t Know %

Rural Citizens 736 105 14 114 15 410 56 107 15

Traders 205 30 15 57 28 100 49 18 9

Exit poll Participants 1995 303 15 320 16 1175 59 197 10

Total 2936 438 15 491 17 1685 57 322 11

A majority of the respondents consider both high and low level of

corruption as harmful. The opinion is almost equally divided between high and low

level. 14% villagers, 15% traders, 15% exit poll participants view low level of

corruption being more harmful. 15% villagers, 28% traders, 16% exit poll

participants view high level of corruption being more harmful whereas 56%

villagers, 49% traders and 59% exit poll participants consider both high and low

level of corruption as harmful.

Perception on future of corruption

Category Responses

Opinion Future of Corruption

Increase % Decrease % No Change % Don’t

Know %

Rural Citizens 736 315 43 104 14 125 17 192 26

Traders 205 106 52 18 9 58 28 23 11

Exit poll Participants 1995 285 14 160 8 1335 67 211 11

Total 2936 706 24 282 10 1518 52 426 14

The opinion is sharply divided on future of corruption. 43% villagers,

52% traders, 14% exit poll participants think corruption will increase in future. 14%

villagers, 9% traders, 8% exit poll participants think corruption will decrease in

future. 17% villagers, 28% traders, 67% exit poll participants think there will be no

change in the existing level of corruption.



Perception on being guiltier Category Responses

Opinion on being more guilty Giver % Taker % Both % Don’t

K%

Rural Citizens 736 169 23 328 45 205 27 34 5

Traders 205 58 28 18 9 106 52 23 11 Exit poll

Participants 1995 163 8 856 43 765 38 211 11

Total 2936 390 13 1202 42 1076 36 268 9

Many respondents did not answer this question. 23% villagers, 28%

traders, 8% exit poll participants think bribe giver is more guilty. 45% villagers, 9%

traders, 43% exit poll participants think bribe taker is more guilty whereas 27%

villagers, 52% traders, 38% exit poll participants think both bribe taker and giver

are guilty.

This chapter has clearly highlighted perceptional differences among

stakeholders as to various critical issues on corruption. The differences arise due

to different levels of exposure the respondents have on corrupt practices. For

instance, villagers are less exposed to such practices compared to traders and

exit poll participants. Similarly, the exit poll participants have better understanding

of processes since they very often face bribe demand while pursuing various

works in government offices. Highlights

The respondent assessment on government offices and departments are conditioned by their individual experiences and exposure.

An overwhelming majority of the respondents are aware about corruption except Nodal officers among whom awareness is restricted to 21% only.

Corruption in any form is not acceptable to a majority of respondents.

Most of the respondents consider both high and low level of corruption as harmful.

A majority think both bribe taker and giver as guilty.

A majority believes that corruption will not decrease in future; on the other hand the view is that it will remain unchanged or increase.



CHAPTER III CITIZEN’S EXPERIENCE ON CORRUPTION This chapter makes an attempt to assess the experience of

stakeholders regarding payment of bribe. It also highlights typical experiences of

different respondent groups and district wise trends on bribe demand, payment

including mode of payment.

Rural Citizens Payment of Bribe for Office Work

26%

42%32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Series1 32% 42% 26%

Bribe Paid Bribe not Paid No Response

32% villagers mention that they have paid bribe to get some office

work done. 42% of them say they have not paid bribe for official work. 26% did not

respond to the question. This makes interesting reading and may suggest that

many government offices deliver services to citizens without expectation of bribe.

District-wise Experience of Bribe Payment

48%

14%

46%

64% 57%

7%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Series1 46% 64% 57% 48% 7% 14%

Bhadrak Nuapada Boudh Puri Gajapati Deogarh

There is wide variation in the bribe payment experience of rural

citizens across districts. Highest 64% villagers report bribe payment in Nuapada

District. In contrast only 7% affirm bribe payment in Gajapati District.



Mode of Bribe Payment

Direct, 69%

Indirect, 31%

69% villagers report direct payment of bribe whereas only 31%

mention indirect payment. Indirect payments are done through middlemen that

include local leaders, Panchayat representatives and grade IV staff working in the

offices.

District-wise Experience of Bribe Payment Mode

50%44%36%

100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Series1 100% 36% 44% 50%

Cuttack Balasore Jagatsinghpur Kandhamal

There is extreme variance in regard to mode of bribe payment

across districts. In Cuttack, 100% villagers report direct payment of bribe whereas

only 36% mention indirect payment in Balasore, 44% in Jagatsinghpur and 50% in

Kandhamal district.

TRADERS Payment of Bribe for Office Work

Paid Bribe, 53%Did'nt Pay Bribe,

34%

No Response, 13%



53% traders mention that they have paid bribe to get some office

work done. 34% of them say they have not paid bribe for official work. 13% did not

respond to the question. More number of traders compared to villagers affirm

payment of bribe for office work.

District-wise Experience of Bribe Payment (Traders)

11%14%

63%71%80%100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Series1 100% 80% 71% 63% 14% 11%

Jharsuguda Sambalpur Koraput Cuttack Puri Mayurbhanj

There is wide variation in the bribe payment experience of traders

across districts. Highest 100% traders report bribe payment in Cuttack District. In

contrast only 11% affirm bribe payment in Mayurbhanj District. Mode of Bribe Payment

Direct, 58%

Indirect, 42%

58% traders report direct payment of bribe whereas only 42%

mention indirect payment. Indirect payments are done through middlemen that

include local leaders, Panchayat representatives and grade IV staff working in the

offices.

Rural Bribe Net The study has revealed a number of causes for which bribes are being

paid. Maximum 29% villagers report payment of bribe to settle land related issues that

include legal disputes, mutation, grant of Patta, and registration etc. 17% villagers

mention bribe payment for miscellaneous works including supply order, forest permit.

12% villagers mention Indira Awas, 11% Caste/ Residence/ Income certificates, 8% Bill



payment, Issue of Licenses, 6% Scheme benefits, Police case and 3% mention work

order as reasons for payment of bribe.

Rural Bribe Net

29%

12%

11%8%

8%

6%

6%

3%

17%Land issues-91IAY-40Certificates-37Bill Payment-27License-27Scheme Benefit-21Legal Case-20Work Order-11Others-91

The bribe net shown above indicates works in which an individual is

involved and he or she is concerned about her loss and gain. Payment of bribes

takes place since everyone wants to get the work done quickly in his/ her favour. It

is generally believed that non payment may cause delay and even lead to denial

of expected benefits.

Timing of Bribe Demand (Rural citizens)

Timing of Bribe Demand

30%

32%

38%

Ist visit-98 2nd visit-103 3rd visit-124

The timing of bribe payment indicates no uniform pattern in demand.

30% respondents faced bribe demand during first visit, 32% during second visit

and 38% during third visit. It is ascertained that normally delay in processing

causes concern in the minds of clients and in a bid to expedite the process they

explore various means and end up in paying bribe as a last resort.



Feeling on Bribe Payment (Rural citizens)

Opinion on Bribe Paid

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Satisfied-80% Dissatisfied-20%

The respondents in this category include rural citizens and traders

who actually paid bribe. It is interesting to note that 80% of those who paid bribe

are satisfied whereas a small 20% only report dissatisfaction. On probing, it was

ascertained from the satisfied persons that the amount paid was petty and they

got the work done quickly. This figure does not match the majority views of rural

citizens that do not approve corruption in any form. Exit Poll Participants Payment of Bribe for Office Work

54%38%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Series1 8% 38% 54%

No Response Did'nt Pay Bribe Paid Bribe

54% exit poll participants mention that they have paid bribe to get

some office work done. 38% of them say they have not paid bribe for official work.

8% did not respond to the question. This makes interesting reading and may

suggest that at least 46% works in the government offices are being done without

payment of bribe. It also offers a hope that a large number of officers even to day

are prepared to render services without insisting on bribe. But at the same time it

is important to identify critical sectors that demand remedial action.



Inter Office Differences in Bribe Payment

71%63%62%54%51%39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Series1 39% 51% 54% 62% 63% 71%

Police Treasury Block Tahsil Sub Registrar RTO

Highest 71% exit poll participants mention about bribe in RTO office,

63% mention Sub Registrar office, 62% mention Tahsil, 54% mention Block, 51%

mention Treasury and 39% mention police station pointing involvement in bribe

transactions. Similarly, 53% mention ULBs and 22% mention Land Acquisition

office for demanding and taking bribe.

Mode of Bribe Payment

Indirect, 36%

Direct, 64%

Highest 64% exit poll participants mention direct payment of bribe

whereas 36% mention that they have paid bribes through middlemen in an indirect

manner.

Inter Office Differences in Mode of Direct Bribe Payment

91%81%66%61%61%51%

0%

50%

100%

Series1 51% 61% 61% 66% 81% 91%

Block Tahsil RTO Police ULB Treasury

Highest 91% exit poll participants mention direct payment of bribe in

Treasury, 81% mention ULB, 66% mention Police, 61% mention RTO office and

Tahsil and 51% mention Block office for direct payment of bribe. The figures are



relatively low in Block office since clients mobilize different type of influence to get the

works done.

Timing of Bribe Demand

23%

40%37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Series1 37% 40% 23%

Ist Visit 2nd Visit 3rd visit

Timing of bribe demand is crucial to note the attitude of service

providers in different offices. The study reveals that only 37% exit poll participants

faced bribe demand during first visit, 40% faced demand during second visit

whereas 23% faced such demand after second visit. It was ascertained from the

respondents that a majority of them learnt about the need to pay bribe indirectly

from middlemen or clerical and grade IV staff employed in the office. In most

occasions bribes were demanded in polite and persuasive mode. Inter Office Differences in Timing of Bribe Demand

63%

36%

46%

32%

34%

19%

32%28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1st visit 28% 32% 46% 36% 19% 34% 32% 63%

Block Tahasil Treasury RTO Land Acquisitio

Police ULB Sub Registrar

63% respondents mention bribe demand in Sub Registrar office

during first visit. 46% mention Treasury, 36% mention RTO office, 34% mention

Police station, 32% mention ULB and Tahsil, 28% mention Block and 19%

mention Land Acquisition office with respect to bribe demand during first visit.



29%40%

39% 49%45%54%

46%33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2nd visit 33% 46% 39% 40% 54% 45% 49% 29%

Block Tahasil Treasury RTO Land Acquisitio Police ULB Sub

Registrar

54% respondents mention bribe demand in Land Acquisition office

during second visit. 49% mention ULB, 46% mention Tahsil, 45% mention Police

station, 40% mention RTO office, 39% mention Treasury 33% mention Block and

29% mention Sub Registrar office with respect to bribe demand during second

visit.

6%

25%14%19%

21%27%22%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

3rd Visit 40% 22% 14% 25% 27% 21% 19% 6%

Block Tahasil Treasury RTO Land Acquisitio

Police ULB Sub Registrar

3rd visit

40% respondents mention bribe demand in Block office during third

visit. 27% mention Land Acquisition office, 25% mention RTO office, 21% mention

Police station, 22% mention Tahsil, 19% mention ULB, 14% mention Treasury

office and 6% mention Sub Registrar office with respect to bribe demand during

first visit.

On the whole, it is found that office of the Sub Registrar tops the list

for bribe demand during the first visit followed by Land Acquisition office during

the second visit and Block office during the third visit.



Status of Work Done (Exit Poll Participants)

62% 53% 71% 63% 39% 51%22%

44% 46% 61%68% 87%

55%85%

76%54%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

% got work done 44% 46% 61% 68% 87% 55% 85% 76%

% paid bribe 54% 62% 53% 71% 63% 39% 51% 22%

Block Tahsil ULB RTO Sub Registrar Police Treasury Land

Acquisitio

The respondents do not have uniform experience in getting works

done after payment of bribe. The outcome differs from case to case and office to

office. It is found that while 71% respondents paid bribe in RTO office as high as

68% of them got their work done. In contrast, against 22% paid bribe, 76% got

their work done in Land Acquisition office. In another extreme one may see Tahsil

office where 62% paid bribe but only 46% had received the expected benefit by

the time of this study. The variance between bribe paid and work done indicate

advance payment in anticipation. There are offices like the ULBs, Police stations,

Sub Registrar and Treasury where number of works done is more than number

paid bribe.

Feeling on Bribe Payment (Exit Poll Participants)

Satisfied, 37%

Not Satisfied, 63%

The respondents in this category include exit poll participants who

actually paid bribe. It is interesting to note that 63% of those who paid bribe are

not satisfied whereas a small 37% only report satisfaction. This is direct contrast

to the views expressed by rural citizens 80% of who report to be satisfied after

paying bribe.



CHAPTER IV

CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS Community Development Blocks Block is the face of district administration and state government in

rural areas. It is the nodal agency to facilitate planning and implementation of

development schemes and programmes. Citizens in rural areas look at Block for

information and assistance. It also attracts other clients like contractors, traders,

suppliers and service providers for contracts and work orders. The amount of

patronage and discretion exercised by the office makes it susceptible to corrupt

practices. The study investigated some of these aspects. MAJOR FINDINGS

Majority of the respondents (27.9%) interacted with Block office for getting Indira Awas and other scheme benefits (26%)

More than half of the respondents (53.7%) those who interacted with Block office claimed to have paid bribe for their works

0

10

20

30

% of Visitors 18.9 27.9 2.5 5.3 9.9 26.0 9.4

% of w ork done 10.6 8.3 0.5 2.5 5.1 11.8 5.1

% Paid Bribe 8.5 17.5 1.4 1.4 6.9 10.6 7.4

Bill Payment I.A.Y. Loan Old Age Pension

Work Order Scheme Benefit

Other

Interaction with block office

21.8% of the respondent had interacted with Block office. The major

reasons for interaction are IAY (27.9%), Scheme Benefit (26%) and Bill Payment

(18.9%). While 57.6% of the respondent visited the office more than twice, only

43.8% of the respondent got their work done.



Purpose of interaction

Purpose of visit Visitors

Number of visits No of visitors got work done1st 2nd More than 2

No % No % No % No % No %

Bill Payment 82 18.9 10 2.3 18 4.1 54 12.4 46 10.6 I.A.Y. 121 27.9 12 2.8 28 6.5 81 18.7 36 8.3 Loan 11 2.5 2 0.5 4 0.9 5 1.2 2 0.5 Old Age Pension 23 5.3 1 0.2 8 1.8 14 3.2 11 2.5 Work Order 43 9.9 5 1.2 8 1.8 30 6.9 22 5.1 Scheme Benefit 113 26.0 35 8.1 29 6.7 49 11.3 51 11.8 Other 41 9.4 12 2.8 12 2.8 17 3.9 22 5.1 Total 434 77 17.7 107 24.7 250 57.6 190 43.8 Services for which bribes are paid

53.7% of the respondents paid bribe to avail the services. Bribes are

paid for all the services at Block office to avoid unnecessary delay. Majority of the

respondent paid bribe for getting an IAY (17.5%), Scheme Benefit (10.6%) and Bill

Payment (8.5%). Out of the total bribe payers 50.6% paid bribes directly to the

concerned Officer/Clerk. Bribe was demanded from 27.5% of the respondent in

their first visit to the office whereas 33% in second visits and 39.5% in their third

visits.

SERVICE FOR WHICH BRIBES ARE PAID AND TIMING OF DEMAND FOR BRIBE

Activities for which bribe

paid

Visitors paid bribe

Mode of payment Timing of demand for bribe Direct Indirect 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit

No % No % No % No % No % No % Bill Payment 37 8.5 24 10.3 13 5.6 17 7.3 8 3.4 12 5.2

I.A.Y. 76 17.5 33 14.2 43 18.5 21 9.0 28 12.0 27 11.6

Loan 6 1.4 3 1.3 3 1.3 1 0.4 2 0.9 3 1.3 Old Age Pension 6 1.4 1 0.4 5 2.1 1 0.4 0 0.0 5 2.1

Work Order 30 6.9 21 9.0 9 3.9 7 3.0 10 4.3 13 5.6 Scheme Benefit 46 10.6 24 10.3 22 9.4 8 3.4 17 7.3 21 9.0

Other 32 7.4 12 5.2 20 8.6 9 3.9 12 5.2 11 4.7

Total 233 53.7 118 50.6 115 49.4 64 27.5 77 33.0 92 39.5



53.2% of the bribes payers rated the bribe amount as high followed by 39.9% as medium and rest 6.9% as low. 21.7% of the respondent, who had rated the amount as high, paid bribe for getting an IAY.

Rating of corruptionLow7%

High53%

Medium40%

Ratings of bribes paid

Purpose High Medium Low No % No % No %

Bill Payment 18 14.5 19 15.3 0 0 I.A.Y. 45 36.3 26 21.0 5 4.0 Loan 2 1.6 4 3.2 0 0.0 Old Age Pension 3 2.4 3 2.4 0 0.0 Work Order 21 16.9 6 4.8 3 2.4 Scheme Benefit 21 16.9 18 14.5 7 5.6 Other 14 11.3 17 13.7 1 0.8 Total 124 53.2 93 39.9 16 6.9

Respondents considered above Rs. 500/- as high Rs 100-200/- as medium and below Rs 100/- as low. Maximum number of payment was made for Indira Awas followed by work order, Scheme Benefit and Bill payments. Details of bribes paid

Purpose No of payments in

cash (Rs) No of payments in kind

(Rs) No of payments as indirect cost (Rs)

< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

Bill Payment 8 3.4 16 6.9 5 2.1 6 2.6 0 0.0 2 0.9 I.A.Y. 25 10.7 8 3.4 19 8.2 8 3.4 11 4.7 5 2.1 Loan 1 0.4 2 0.9 1 0.4 2 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Old Age Pension 1 0.4 0 0.0 3 1.3 0 0.0 2 0.9 0 0.0 Work Order 6 2.6 15 6.4 2 0.9 3 1.3 0 0.0 4 1.7 Scheme Benefit 8 3.4 16 6.9 12 5.2 6 2.6 2 0.9 2 0.9 Other 7 3.0 5 2.1 15 6.4 3 1.3 2 0.9 0 0.0 Total 56 24.0 62 26.6 57 24.5 28 12.0 17 7.3 13 5.6



Results of giving Bribes 17.6% of the persons who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which 43.9% of persons claimed that more bribes demanded from them followed

by 19.5% who said works were under process.

Reasons for not getting any result

Reasons No. % Work Under process 8 19.5 More bribe demanded 18 43.9 Office workload 6 14.6 Person transferred 2 4.9 Delay by middlemen 2 4.9 Others 5 12.2

Total 41 17.6

Citizen perception on payment of bribe 36.5% of the persons who paid bribe are satisfied with the result,

rest 63.5% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities

or vigilance department are ignorance about where to lodge complaint (20.6%),

fear of work getting delayed (12.9%), lengthy procedure (7.7%), fear of retaliation

by staff (8.2%), no faith on outcome from complaint (9.0%) and the course may be

expensive (5.2%).

Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept.

20.6

12.99 8.2 7.7

5.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ignorance Delay No faith inoutcome

Retaliation LengthyProcedure

Expensive

The major reason for satisfaction after bribe payment are as follows:

Work done (36.5%) followed by quick result (23.5%), no harassment (15.3%), no

repeated visit (9.4%) and favours earned (15.3%).



Reasons for satisfaction after paying bribe

Reasons No. %

Work done 31 36.5 Quick result 20 23.5 No harassment 13 15.3 No repeat visits 8 9.4 Favours earned 13 15.3

Total 85 100.0 VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN BLOCKS Corruption Experience

Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption Yes No High Medium Low

Block 30% 70% 32% 26% 42%

Two thirds of the respondents deny corruption in Block office. Those

who affirm corruption, of them 32% consider it high, 26% say medium and 42%

say low.

Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)

♦ Lack of adequate staff strength ♦ Political interference ♦ Culture of demanding and paying bribe ♦ Interference by superior officials ♦ Lack of clear guidelines & protocols ♦ Low salary of employees

Departmental measures to check corruption

Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate Yes No No

ResponseYes No No

Response Block 22% 10% 68% 36% 50% 14%

22% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address

corruption. 10% say no whereas 68% have not given any answer. Similarly, while

36% say measures taken are effective, 50 % say those are not adequate and 14%

do not respond. In contrast, 56% of respondents have said corruption can be



eliminated from Block office, 21% say it can be curbed whereas 8% deny such

prospects. 15% respondents did not comment on future of corruption in Block.

Tahasil Office

Around 17% of the respondents claimed to have interacted with Tahasil office

Majority of the respondents (33.2%) interacted with Tahasil office for Miscellaneous Certificates followed by land related issues.

More than 60% of the respondents (62.4%) interacted with Tahasil office claimed to have paid bribe for their works

0

20

40

% of Visitors 33.2 14.7 1.2 5.0 8.2 28.8 4.1 4.7

% of w ork done 21.2 4.7 0.3 1.8 2.4 12.4 1.2 2.6

% Paid Bribe 19.1 9.1 0.9 3.5 7.1 18.5 1.5 2.6

Misc. Certif icate

Mutation Land Lease

Land Settlement

Legal Case

Land Records

Scheme Benefit

Others

INTERACTION WITH TAHASIL OFFICE

The major reasons for interaction with Tahsil office are Caste/

Income/ Residence certificates (33.2%), Copy of Land Records (Patta) (28.8%),

Mutation (14.7%) and Legal Cases (8.2%). 76.5% of the respondent visited the

office more than once. Only 46.5% of the respondent got their work done.

PURPOSE OF INTERACTION

Purpose of visit Visitors Number of visits No of visitors got

work done 1st 2nd More than 2 No % No % No % No % No %

Misc. Certificates 113 33.2 24 7.1 28 8.2 61 17.9 72 21.2 Mutation 50 14.7 2 0.6 13 3.8 35 10.3 16 4.7 Land Lease 4 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.2 1 0.3 Land Settlement 17 5.0 4 1.2 6 1.8 7 2.1 6 1.8 Legal Case 28 8.2 7 2.1 11 3.2 10 2.9 8 2.4 Copy of Land Records 98 28.8 26 7.6 39 11.5 33 9.7 42 12.4 Scheme Benefit 14 4.1 9 2.6 3 0.9 2 0.6 4 1.2 Others 16 4.7 8 2.4 5 1.5 3 0.9 9 2.6

Total 340 17.0 80 23.5 105 30.9 155 45.6 158 46.5



SERVICES FOR WHICH BRIBES ARE PAID

62.4% of the respondents paid bribe to avail the services. Bribes are

paid at Tahasil office to avoid unnecessary delay. Majority of the respondents paid

bribe for getting Misc. Certificates (19.1%) followed by Copy of Land Records

(18.5%), Mutation (9.1%), Legal Cases (7.1%), Land Settlements (3.5%) and 5%

for other works. Out of the total bribe payers 60.8% paid bribes directly to the


their first visit to the office followed by 45.8% in their second visit and 22.2% in

their third visits.

SERVICE FOR WHICH BRIBES ARE PAID AND TIMING OF DEMAND FOR BRIBE Activities for which bribe

paid

Visitors paid bribe


No % No % No % No % No % No % Misc. Certificates 65 19.1 42 19.8 23 10.8 24 11.3 31 14.6 10 4.7

Mutation 31 9.1 18 8.5 13 6.1 13 6.1 11 5.2 7 3.3 Land Lease 3 0.9 3 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.4 0 0.0 Land Settlement 12 3.5 9 4.2 3 1.4 3 1.4 5 2.4 4 1.9

Legal Case 24 7.1 6 2.8 18 8.5 8 3.8 10 4.7 6 2.8 Copy of Land Records 63 18.5 44 20.8 19 9.0 14 6.6 31 14.6 18 8.5

Scheme Benefit 5 1.5 2 0.9 3 1.4 2 0.9 3 1.4 0 0.0

Others 9 2.6 5 2.4 4 1.9 4 1.9 3 1.4 2 0.9 Total 212 62.4 129 60.8 83 39.2 68 32.1 97 45.8 47 22.2

37.3% of the bribes payers rated the bribe amount as high followed by

36.3% as medium and rest 26.4% as low. Majority of the respondent, who had rated the

amount as high, paid bribe for the copy of Land Records.

Rating of Curruption

Medium36%

Low26% High

38%



RATINGS OF BRIBES PAID

Purpose High Medium Low

No % No % No % Misc. Certificates 22 10.4 23 10.8 20 9.4 Mutation 18 8.5 8 3.8 5 2.4 Land Lease 3 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Land Settlement 3 1.4 6 2.8 3 1.4 Legal Case 6 2.8 8 3.8 10 4.7 Copy of Land Records 23 10.8 26 12.3 14 6.6 Scheme Benefit 1 0.5 2 0.9 2 0.9 Others 3 1.4 4 1.9 2 0.9

Total 79 37.3 77 36.3 56 26.4 Respondents considered above Rs. 500/- as high Rs 100-200/- as

medium and below Rs 100/- as low. Maximum number of payment was made for

miscellaneous certificates followed by land records, and mutation deeds.

DETAILS OF BRIBES PAID

Purpose

No of payments in cash (Rs)

No of payments in kind (Rs)

No of payments as indirect cost (Rs)

< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

Misc. Certificates 42 19.8 0 0.0 9 4.2 0 0.0 14 6.6 0 0.0

Mutation 12 5.7 6 2.8 1 0.5 0 0.0 8 3.8 4 1.9 Land Lease 0 0.0 3 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Land Settlement 5 2.4 4 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.9 1 0.5

Legal Case 3 1.4 3 1.4 6 2.8 0 0.0 8 3.8 4 1.9 Copy of Land Records 44 20.8 0 0.0 9 4.2 0 0.0 10 4.7 0 0.0

Scheme Benefit 2 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 2 0.9 0 0.0

Others 5 2.4 0 0.0 2 0.9 0 0.0 2 0.9 0 0.0 Total 113 53.3 16 7.5 28 13.2 0 0.0 46 21.7 9 4.2

Results of giving Bribes

25.9% of the persons who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which 27.3% of persons claimed that more bribes was demanded from them

followed by 25.5% Person’s saying works are under process, 21.8% said that



works got delayed for maximum workload on the concerned staff, 16.4% said

absent of concerned person and 9.1% said work is delayed by middleman.

Reasons for not getting any result after bribe payment

Reasons No. %

Under process 14 25.5 More bribe demanded 15 27.3 Office workload delayed the disposal 12 21.8 Absent of concerned person 9 16.4 Delay by middlemen 5 9.1 Others 55 25.9

Citizen perception on payment of bribe 33.5% of the persons who paid bribe are satisfied with the result,


or vigilance department are ignorance about where to lodge complaint (21.2%),

fear of work getting delayed (18.4%), lengthy procedure (3.8%), fear of retaliation

by staff (11.8%), no faith on outcome from complaint (9.0%) and the course may

be expensive (6.1%).

Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept. in %

21.2

11.86.1 5.2 3.8

18.4

05

10152025

Ignorance Delay Retaliation Expensive No faith inoutcome

LengthyProcedure


Reasons No. % Work done 24 33.8 Quick result 20 28.2 No harassment 5 7.0 No repeat visits 8 11.3 Favours earned 14 19.7

Total 71 100.0



The major reason for satisfaction is work done (33.8%) followed by

quick result (28.2%), favours earned (19.7%), no burden of repeated visit (11.3%),

and no harassment by dealing staff/ officers (7%).

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN TAHSIL Corruption Experience


Tahsil 28% 72% 28% 33% 39% Almost Two thirds of the respondents deny corruption in Tahsil office. Those who affirm corruption, of them 28% consider it high, 33% say medium and 39% say low. Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)

Lack of adequate staff strength

Culture of demanding and paying bribe

Low salary of employees

Lack of clear guidelines & protocols

Political interference

Interference by superior officials

The nodal officers in Tahsil have identified poor staff strength,

Culture of demanding and paying bribe and low salary as primary causes of

corruption. They have not attached much importance to factors like Political

interference and Interference by superior officials.



ResponseYes No No

Response Block 17% 6% 77% 55% 9% 36%






do not respond. 51% of respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from

Tahsil office, 19% say it can be curbed but 15% deny such prospects. 15%

respondents did not comment on future of corruption in Tahsil.

Treasury Office MAJOR FINDINGS

11% of the respondents claimed to have interacted with Treasury offices.

Majority of the respondents (52.5%) interacted with Treasuries for the their retirement benefits

More than 50% of the respondents (51.1%) interacted with Treasuries claimed to have paid bribe for their works

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% of Visitors 34.2 2.3 5.9 0.9 52.5 4.1

% of work done 28.3 1.4 4.6 0.9 46.1 4.1

% Paid Bribe 20.5 1.4 5.0 0.9 23.3 0.0

Bill Payment GPF Loan Pension Stamp Paper issue

Retirement Benefits

Tax Deposit



INTERACTION WITH TREASURY OFFICES 11% of the respondent had interacted with Treasuries. Majority of them

interacted to get retirement benefits (52.5%) followed by bill payment (34.2%), release of

pension (5.9%), tax deposit (4.1%), GPF loan (2.3%) and issue of stamp paper (0.9%). It

is very encouraging that more than 85% of the visitors get their work done and only

30.6% has visited the Treasuries for more than twice.



Number of visits No of visitors got work done 1st 2nd More than 2


Bill Payment 75 34.2 22 10.0 33 15.1 20 9.1 62 28.3 GPF Loan 5 2.3 1 0.5 0 0.0 4 1.8 3 1.4 Pension 13 5.9 0 0.0 2 0.9 11 5.0 10 4.6 Issue of Stamp Paper 2 0.9 0 0.0 2 0.9 3 1.4 2 0.9 Retirement Benefits 115 52.5 57 26.0 30 13.7 29 13.2 101 46.1 Tax Deposit 9 4.1 5 2.3 4 1.8 0 0.0 9 4.1

Total 219 11.0 85 38.8 71 32.4 67 30.6 187 85.4 SERVICES FOR WHICH BRIBES ARE PAID 51.1% of the visitors paid bribes to get their work done. Out of which

45.5% for getting retirement benefits followed by 40.2% for bill payment, 9.8% of

getting pension, 2.7% for GPF loan and rest 1.8% for issue of stamp paper. Out of

the total bribe payers 91.1% paid bribes directly in cash to the concerned

Officer/Clerk and rest other (8.9%) paid indirectly through kind or middlemen.

Bribe was demanded from the majority during first visit (46.4%) to

the office followed by 39.3% in second visits and 14.3% in other visits. The study

reveals that no bribe was paid for deposit of Tax in Treasuries.




Activities for which bribe paid

Visitors paid bribe

Mode of payment Timing of demand for bribe

Direct Indirect 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit

No % No % No % No % No % No %

Bill Payment 45 40.2 44 39.3 1 0.9 25 22.3 16 14.3 4 3.6

GPF Loan 3 2.7 3 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.7

Pension 11 9.8 6 5.4 5 4.5 1 0.9 3 2.7 7 6.3

Issue of Stamp Paper 2 1.8 2 1.8 0 0.0 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Retirement Benefits 51 45.5 47 42.0 4 3.6 24 21.4 25 22.3 2 1.8

Tax Deposit 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 112 51.1 102 91.1 10 8.9 52 46.4 44 39.3 16 14.3

Rating of CorruptionLow15% High

34%

Medium51%

50.9% of the bribes payers rated the corruption in the Treasuries as

medium followed by 33.9% as high and rest 15.2% as low. Majority of the visitors,

who had rated the amount as high, paid bribe to get retirement benefits.

Item wise rating of bribes paid


No % No % No %

Bill Payment 14 12.5 21 18.8 10 8.9 GPF Loan 1 0.9 2 1.8 0 0.0 Pension 4 3.6 6 5.4 1 0.9 Issue of Stamp Paper 1 0.9 1 0.9 0 0.0 Retirement Benefits 18 16.1 27 24.1 6 5.4

Total 38 33.9 57 50.9 17 15.2



Respondents considered above Rs. 500/- as high Rs 100-200/- as


Retirement Benefits followed by Bill Payment.

Details of bribes paid

Purpose




< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

Bill Payment 27 24.1 17 15.2 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 GPF Loan 3 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Pension 2 1.8 4 3.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 4.5 0 0.0 Issue of Stamp Paper 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Retirement Benefits 41 36.6 6 5.4 2 1.8 0 0.0 2 1.8 0 0.0

Total 75 67.0 27 24.1 2 1.8 1 0.9 7 6.3 0 0.0


8.9% of the visitors who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which majority claimed that work is under process (50%) whereas 20% visitors

said works are not done as they delayed in paying bribe and 10% said other staffs

are demanding bribe. Rest 20% visitors mentioned transfer or leave/ absence of

concerned person delayed the work.


Reasons No. % Under process 5 50.0 Transfer of concern clerk 1 10.0 Absence of concerned person 1 10.0 Delay in payment of Bribe 2 20.0 Others Staffs are demanding Bribes 1 10.0

Total 10 8.9 Visitors perception on payment of bribe

32.1% of the persons who paid bribe are satisfied with the result,


include no faith on outcome (22.3%), fear of work getting delayed (17.9%), no



response on any complaint (17.0%), fear of retaliation by aggrieved staff (7.1%)

and lengthy procedure (3.6%).


7.11717.922.3

3.60

102030

No faith inoutcome

Work will bedelayed

No response tocomplain

Fear ofretaliation

LengthyProcedure

Reasons for not complaining to higher officials

Reasons No. %

Work will be delayed 20 17.9 Fear of retaliation by employee 8 7.1 No response on any complain 19 17.0 No faith in outcome 25 22.3 Lengthy Procedure 4 3.6 Satisfied 36 32.1

Total 112 100.0


Reasons No. % Work done smoothly 13 36.1 Quick result 11 30.6 No harassment 3 8.3 No more repeated visits 9 25.0

Total 36 100.0 The major reason for satisfaction is work done smoothly (36.1%)

followed by quick result (30.6%), no more repeated visits (25%) and no

harassment (8.3%).

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN TREASURY Corruption Experience


Treasury 18% 82% 28% 36% 36%



Almost four fifth of the respondents deny corruption in Treasury. Those

who affirm corruption, 28% consider it high, 36% say medium and 36% say low.









Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate

Yes No No Response

Yes No No Response

Block 28% 36% 36% 80% 0% 20% 28% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address


80% say measures taken are effective, 20% do not respond.

52% of respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from

Treasury office, 14% say it can be curbed but 10% deny such prospects. 24%

respondents did not comment on future of corruption in Tahsil.

RTO Office MAJOR FINDINGS

Around 10% of the respondents interacted with RTO office

Majority of the respondents (39.6%) interacted with RTO office for Driving License

More than 2/3rd of the respondents (67.5%) who interacted with RTO office paid bribe for their works



0

20

40

60

% of Visitors 39.6 12.4 7.9 17.3 5.4 17.3

% of work done 25.2 7.9 5.0 13.4 4.0 12.9

% Paid Bribe 30.7 8.9 5.9 5.9 4.5 14.9

Driving License

Fitness Certificate

Route Permit

Tax Deposit Ownership Transfer

Vehicle Registration

INTERACTION WITH R.T.O. OFFICE

The major reasons for visiting RTO office include Driving License

(39.6%), Vehicle Registration (17.3%), Tax Deposit (17.3%) and Fitness

Certificate (12.4%). While 29.2% of the respondent visited the office more than

twice and 37.6% for twice, only 68.3% of the respondent got their work done.



Number of visits No of visitors got work done 1st 2nd More than 2


Driving License 80 39.6 18 8.9 39 19.3 23 11.4 51 25.2Fitness Certificate 25 12.4 6 3.0 13 6.4 6 3.0 16 7.9 Route Permit 16 7.9 3 1.5 2 1.0 11 5.4 10 5.0 Tax Deposit 35 17.3 25 12.4 5 2.5 5 2.5 27 13.4Ownership Transfer 11 5.4 1 0.5 7 3.5 3 1.5 8 4.0 Vehicle Registration 35 17.3 14 6.9 10 5.0 11 5.4 26 12.9

Total 202 10.1 67 33.2 76 37.6 59 29.2 138 68.3 Services for which bribes are paid 67.5% of the respondents paid bribe to avail the services. Bribes are

paid at RTO office to avoid unnecessary delay. Majority of the respondent paid

bribe for getting Driving License (29.2%) followed by Vehicle Registration 14.2%,

Fitness Certificate 8.5%, Route Permit (5.7%), Tax Deposit (5.7%) and Ownership

Transfer (4.2%). Out of the total bribe payers 60.8% paid bribes directly to the


their first visit to the office whereas 39.9% in second visits.



Service for which bribes are paid and timing of demand for bribe


Visitors paid bribe


No % No % No % No % No % No % Driving License 62 29.2 43 30.1 19 13.3 16 11.2 34 23.8 12 8.4 Fitness Certificate 18 8.5 8 5.6 10 7.0 6 4.2 8 5.6 4 2.8 Route Permit 12 5.7 5 3.5 7 4.9 3 2.1 2 1.4 7 4.9 Tax Deposit 12 5.7 9 6.3 3 2.1 10 7.0 2 1.4 0 0.0 Ownership Transfer 9 4.2 4 2.8 5 3.5 2 1.4 4 2.8 3 2.1 Vehicle Registration 30 14.2 18 12.6 12 8.4 14 9.8 7 4.9 9 6.3

Total 143 67.5 87 60.8 56 39.2 51 35.7 57 39.9 35 24.5

Rating of Corruption

High49%

Medium38%

Low13%

49% of the bribes payers rated the bribe amount as high followed by

38.5% as medium and rest 12.6% as low. 21.7% of the respondent, who had

rated the amount as high, paid bribe for the Driving License.

Item wise ratings of bribes paid


Driving License 31 21.7 27 18.9 4 2.8

Fitness Certificate 9 6.3 5 3.5 4 2.8

Route Permit 7 4.9 5 3.5 0 0.0

Tax Deposit 5 3.5 4 2.8 3 2.1

Ownership Transfer 4 2.8 3 2.1 2 1.4

Vehicle Registration 14 9.8 11 7.7 5 3.5

Total 70 49.0 55 38.5 18 12.6





Driving License followed by Vehicle Registration.





< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

Driving License 34 23.8 9 6.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 12 8.4 5 3.5

Fitness Certificate 7 4.9 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 4.9 3 2.1

Route Permit 0 0.0 5 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 4.9

Tax Deposit 8 5.6 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1 0 0.0

Ownership Transfer 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1 2 1.4

Vehicle Registration 12 8.4 6 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.6 4 2.8

Total 64 44.8 23 16.1 2 1.4 0 0.0 33 23.1 21 14.7

Results of giving bribes 12.6% of the persons who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which 44.4% Person’s works are under process followed by 33.3% of persons

claimed that more bribes demanded from them.

Reasons for not getting any result for bribe paid

Reasons No. %

Under process 8 44.4

More bribe demanded 6 33.3

Person on leave 1 5.6

Delay by middlemen 3 16.7

Total 18 12.6

PERCEPTION ON PAYMENT OF BRIBE

35.7% of the persons paid bribe are satisfied with the result, rest

64.3% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities

include ignorance about where to made complaints (19.6%), their work will be

more delayed (33.6%), lengthy procedure (3.5%), fear of retaliation (2.8%), no

faith on outcome (2.1%) and more expensive (2.8%).




2.12.82.83.5

19.6

33.6

0

10

20

30

40

Delay Ignorance LengthyProcedure

Retaliation Expensive No faith inoutcome

Reasons for not complaining to higher officials Reasons No. % Ignorance about procedure 28 19.6 Delay in work 48 33.6 Retaliation by employee 4 2.8 Expensive 4 2.8 No faith in outcome 3 2.1 Lengthy Procedure 5 3.5 Satisfied 51 35.7

Total 143 100.0

Reasons for satisfaction after paying bribe Reasons No. %

Work done 23 45.1

Quick result 15 29.4

No harassment 7 13.7

No repeat visits 4 7.8

Favours earned 2 3.9

Total 51 100.0


quick result (29.4%), no harassment (13.7%), no repeated visit (7.8%) and favours

earned from officials (3.9%).

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN RTO OFFICE Corruption Experience

Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption

Yes No High Medium Low

Tahsil 23% 77% 50% 25% 25%



Almost Two thirds of the respondents deny corruption in RTO office. Those

who affirm corruption, of them 50% consider it high, 25% say medium and 25% say low.








The nodal officers in RTO office have identified poor staff strength,

Political Interference and Culture of demanding and paying bribe as primary

causes of corruption. They have not attached much importance to factors like

Lack of clear guidelines & protocols and Interference by superior officials



Yes No No Response

Yes No No Response





RTO office, 30% say it can be curbed but 2% deny such prospects. 16%

respondents did not comment on future of corruption in RTO office.

Land Acquisition Office MAJOR FINDINGS

Around 6% of the respondents interacted with Land Acquisition Offices

Majority of the respondents (75.8%) interacted with Land Acquisition Offices for the compensation payment.



More than 20% of the respondents (21.7%) interacted with Land Acquisition Offices claimed to have paid bribe to get their works done.

0

50

100

% of Visitors 75.8 15.0 9.2

% of work done 61.7 6.7 7.5

% Paid Bribe 8.3 6.7 6.7

Land Compensation Rehabilitation Benefits Land Dispute Settlement

Interaction with land acquisition offices 6% of the respondent had interacted with Land Acquisition Offices.

The reasons for interaction are to get compensation for their land (75.8%), to get

rehabilitation benefits (15.0%) and to settle land disputes (9.2%). It is very

encouraging that 75.8% of the visitors get their work done and only 33.3% of the

visitors visited the office for more than twice.





To get Compensation for Land 91 75.8 31 25.8 34 28.3 26 21.7 74 61.7

To get Rehabilitation Benefits 18 15.0 2 1.7 7 5.8 9 7.5 8 6.7

For Land Dispute settlement 11 9.2 0 0.0 6 5.0 5 4.2 9 7.5

Total 120 6.0 33 27.5 47 39.2 40 33.3 91 75.8

Services for which bribes are paid 21.7% of the visitors paid bribes to get their work done. Out of which

38.5% paid for getting land compensation, followed by 30.8% for getting

rehabilitation benefits, and rest 30.8% for dispute settlements.

Out of the total bribe payers 65.4% paid bribes directly in cash to the

concerned Officer/Clerk and rest other (34.6%) paid indirectly through kinds and



middlemen. Bribe was demanded from the majority of the bribe payers in their

second visits (53.8%) to the office followed by 19.2% in first visit and 26.9% in

other visits.

Service for which bribes are paid and timing of demand for bribe


Visitors paid bribe




To get Compensation for Land 10 38.5 6 23.1 4 15.4 3 11.5 4 15.4 3 11.5

To get Rehabilitation Benefits 8 30.8 4 15.4 4 15.4 2 7.7 4 15.4 2 7.7

For settlement of Land Disputes 8 30.8 7 26.9 1 3.8 0 0.0 6 23.1 2 7.7

Total 26 21.7 17 65.4 9 34.6 5 19.2 14 53.8 7 26.9


High46%

Medium35%

Low19%

46.2% of the bribes payers rated the corruption in the office as high

followed by 34.6% as medium and rest 19.2% as low. Majority of the visitors, who

had rated the amount as high, paid bribe to get compensation.

Item wise ratings of bribes paid


To get Compensation for Land 5 19.2 3 11.5 2 7.7

To get Rehabilitation Benefits 1 3.8 5 19.2 2 7.7

For Land Dispute settlement 6 23.1 1 3.8 1 3.8

Total 12 46.2 9 34.6 5 19.2





settlement of land disputes followed by compensation for land.


Purpose




< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500

No % No % No % No % No % No % To get Compensation for Land 6 23.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8 3 11.5 0 0.0

To get Rehabilitation Benefits 4 15.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8 3 11.5

For Land Dispute settlement 5 19.2 2 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8

Total 15 57.7 2 7.7 0 0.0 1 3.8 4 15.4 4 15.4

Results of giving Bribes 23.1% of the visitors who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which majority claimed that more bribes demanded from them (50%) followed by

33.3% visitors said their works are under process and rest 23.1% visitors said that

works are not done for the counter objection filed by opponents.


Reasons No. %



Counter by opponent 1 16.7

Total 6 23.1 Visitors perception on payment of bribe 65.4% of the persons paid bribe are satisfied with the result, rest

34.6% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities

include ignorance about where to make complaints (3.8%), fear of work getting

delayed (11.5%), fear of retaliation (11.5%) and no faith in outcome (5.2%).




11.5

7.7

3.8

11.5

02468

101214

Delay Retaliation No faith in outcome Ignorance

REASONS FOR NOT COMPLAINING TO HIGHER OFFICIALS

Reasons No. %

Ignorance 1 3.8

Delay 3 11.5

Retaliation 3 11.5 No faith in outcome 2 7.7 Satisfied 17 65.4

Total 26 100.0

REASONS FOR SATISFACTION

Reasons No. % Work done 5 29.4 Quick result 4 23.5 No harassment 1 5.9 No more repeat visits 7 41.2

Total 17 100.0 The major reason for satisfaction is no more repeated visits (41.2%) followed by work done (29.4%), quick result (23.5%) and no harassment (5.9%). VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE Corruption Experience



Tahsil 14% 86% 24% 38% 38%



An overwhelming majority of the respondents deny corruption in Land Acquisition office. 14% say yes and 86% say no experience of corruption. Those who affirm corruption, of them 24% consider it high, 38% say medium and 38% say low. Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)







The nodal officers in Land Acquisition office have identified poor

staff strength, Interference by superior officials and Political Interference as

primary causes of corruption. They have not attached much importance to factors

like Lack of clear guidelines & protocols and low salary.



Yes No No Response

Yes No No Response





Land Acquisition office, 11% say it can be curbed but 5% deny such prospects.

33% respondents did not comment on future of corruption in this office.



Police Station MAJOR FINDINGS

Around 11% of the respondents interacted with Police in last one year.

More than half (54.6%) of the respondents interacted with Police for Legal Cases followed by 31.2% for filling Complaints/ FIRs.

Around 39.4% of the respondents interacted with Police claimed to have paid

bribe to Police to get service.

0

20

40

60

% of Visitors 31.2 5.0 54.6 7.3 1.8

% of work done 19.7 1.8 29.8 2.8 0.9

% Paid Bribe 9.2 3.7 21.1 4.1 1.4

FIR Land Dispute Legal Case Scheme Benefit

Theft Case

Interaction with police

Overall 11 percent of the Respondents interacted with Police department. More than half of the interactions (54.6%) happened for Legal Cases. 28% of the visitors have visited police station for more than twice. Only 55% of the visitors got their work done.


Purpose of visit

Visitors Number of visits No of visitors

got work done 1st 2nd More than 2


FIR 68 31.2 37 17.0 20 9.2 11 5.0 43 19.7

Land Dispute 11 5.0 03 1.4 00 0.0 08 3.7 04 1.8

Legal Case 119 54.6 43 19.7 41 18.8 35 16.1 65 29.8

Scheme Benefit 16 7.3 05 2.3 06 2.8 05 2.3 06 2.8

Theft Case 04 1.8 01 0.5 01 0.5 02 0.9 02 0.9

Total 218 10.9 89 40.8 68 31.2 61 28.0 120 55.0



Services for which bribes are paid

76% of respondents who had interacted with the Police had adopted

alternate methods like paying bribes, using influence, approaching middlemen etc.

Of these, 39.4% had paid bribe to avail the services. Police is the investigating

agency for criminal cases. But the unnecessary lingering the investigation has

forced the citizen to pay bribes for accelerate the investigation. An FIR is a very

important document as it sets the process of criminal justice in motion. It is only

after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police take up investigation

of the case.

The study reveals that majority out of the bribes payers paid for

Legal Cases (53.5%) followed by 23.3% for registering the FIR. Out of the bribe

payers 66.3% paid cash directly to the concerned officers whereas rest (33.7%)

followed indirect ways like paying through any kinds, middleman etc.


Activities for which bribe

paid

Visitors paid bribe



FIR 20 23 15 17 5 5.8 8 9.3 10 11.6 2 2.3

Land Dispute 8 9.3 3 3.5 5 5.8 1 1.2 4 4.7 3 3.5

Legal Case 46 54 30 35 16 19 20 23.3 17 19.8 9 10.5

Scheme Benefit 9 11 6 7 3 3.5 0 0.0 6 7.0 3 3.5

Theft Case 3 3.5 3 3.5 0 0 0 0.0 2 2.3 1 1.2

Total 86 39.4 57 66 29 34 29 33.7 39 45.3 18 20.9


Medium34%

Low15%

High51%



More than half of the bribes payers (51.2%) rated the bribe amount

as high followed by 33.7% as medium and rest 15.1% as low.

ITEM WISE RATINGS OF BRIBES PAID


No % No % No %

FIR 6 7 8 9.3 6 7

Land Dispute 5 5.8 3 3.5 0 0

Legal Case 26 30.2 15 17.4 5 5.8

Scheme Benefit 7 8.1 1 1.2 1 1.2

Theft Case 0 0 2 2.3 1 1.2

Total 44 51.2 29 33.7 13 15.1

Majority of the bribe payers (81.4%) paid by cash whereas 11.6%

through kinds and 7% followed indirect ways for paying bribes. On looking into

bribe amounts 26.8% paid more than Rs. 500/- and rest 73.2% paid less than Rs.

500/-. DETAILS OF BRIBES PAID

Purpose




< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

FIR 11 12.8 7 8.1 2 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Land Dispute 2 2.3 4 4.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 1.2

Legal Case 28 32.6 6 7.0 6 7.0 2 2.3 1 1.2 3 3.5

Scheme Benefit 9 10.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Theft Case 3 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 53 61.6 17 19.8 8 9.3 2 2.3 2 2.3 4 4.7 Results of giving Bribes 30.2% of the persons did not get result. Out of which 26.9% Person’s works are

under process followed by 23.1% of persons claimed that more bribes demanded

from them.



REASONS FOR NOT GETTING ANY RESULT

Reasons No. %



Office workload 5 19.2

Person transferred 1 3.8


Others 4 15.4

Citizen perception on payment of bribe

31.4% of the persons who paid bribe are satisfied with the result,


include ignorance about where to made complaints (22.1%), their work will be

more delayed (15.1%), lengthy procedure (12.8%), fear of retaliation (8.1%), no

faith on outcome (7%) and more expensive (3.5%).


7.0

22.1

15.112.8

8.1

3.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ignorance Delay LengthyProcedure

Retaliation No faith inoutcome

Expensive




Reasons No. % Work done 8 29.6 Quick result 5 18.5 No harassment 6 22.2 No repeat visits 5 18.5 Favours earned 3 11.1

Total 27 100.0 The major reason for satisfaction is work done smoothly (29.6%)

followed by no harassment (22.2%), quick result (18.5%), no more repeated visit

(18.5%) and favours earned (11.1%).

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN POLICE STATION Corruption Experience



Tahsil 18% 82% 0% 18% 82% An overwhelming majority of the respondents deny corruption in police station. 18% say yes and 82% say no experience of corruption. Those who affirm corruption, of them none consider it high, 18% say medium and 82% say low. Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)









The nodal officers in police station have identified poor staff strength, Political Interference and Culture of demanding and paying bribe as primary causes of corruption. They have not attached much importance to factors like Lack of clear guidelines & protocols and Interference by superior officials Departmental measures to check corruption


ResponseYes No No

Response Block 13% 5% 82% 63% 25% 12%



63% say measures taken are effective, 25% say those are not adequate and 12%


police station, 23% say it can be curbed but 8% deny such prospects. 25%

respondents did not comment on future of corruption in this office.

Urban Local Bodies MAJOR FINDINGS

Around 12% of the respondents interacted with Urban Local Bodies

Majority of the respondents (25%) interacted with Urban Bodies for Misc. Certificates like Birth certificate, Death certificate, etc.

More than half of the respondents (53.4%) interacted with Urban Bodies claimed to have paid bribe for their works



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% of Visitors 25.0 19.5 13.1 10.2 7.6 5.9 4.7 4.2 3.4 6.4

% of w ork done 18.2 11.0 9.3 5.1 3.4 4.2 3.0 0.4 1.3 4.7

% Paid Bribe 12.7 10.2 8.1 3.0 4.7 2.5 3.8 4.2 2.1 2.1

Misc. Certif ica

tes

Scheme Benefit

Tax Deposit

Oldage Pension

Building Plan

Approva

Bill Payment

Work order

Land Settleme

nt

Certif ied Copy Others

Purpose of Interaction



No % No % No % No % No % Bill Payment 14 5.9 3 1.3 2 0.8 9 3.8 10 4.2 Certified Copy 8 3.4 2 0.8 2 0.8 4 1.7 3 1.3 Demand for civic services 8 3.4 3 1.3 3 1.3 2 0.8 6 2.5 Land Settlement 10 4.2 1 0.4 2 0.8 7 3.0 1 0.4 Legal Case 3 1.3 1 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.8 2 0.8 Misc. Certificates 59 25.0 9 3.8 32 13.6 18 7.6 43 18.2 Old age Pension 24 10.2 7 3.0 12 5.1 5 2.1 12 5.1 Building Plan Approval 18 7.6 4 1.7 6 2.5 8 3.4 8 3.4 Retirement benefit 4 1.7 1 0.4 2 0.8 1 0.4 3 1.3 Scheme Benefit 46 19.5 9 3.8 14 5.9 23 9.7 26 11.0 Tax Deposit 31 13.1 13 5.5 10 4.2 8 3.4 22 9.3 Work order 11 4.7 1 0.4 3 1.3 7 3.0 7 3.0

Total 236 12.1 54 22.9 88 37.3 94 39.8 143 60.6

12.1% of the respondent had interacted with Urban Bodies. The major

reasons for interaction are Misc. Certificate (25%), Scheme Benefit (19.5%), Tax Deposit

(13.1%), Old age Pension (10.2%), Approval of Building Plan (7.6%), Bill payment (5.9%),

Land Settlement (4.2%) and getting Work Order (4.7%). While 77.1% of the respondent

visited the office more than once only 60.6% of the respondent got their work done.



EXPERIENCES WITH URBAN BODIES


Visitors paid bribe


No % No % No % No % No % No % Bill Payment 6 4.8 6 4.8 0 0.0 4 3.2 1 0.8 1 0.8Certified Copy 5 4.0 2 1.6 3 2.4 1 0.8 3 2.4 1 0.8Demand for civic services

2 1.6 2 1.6 0 0.0 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0

Land Settlement 10 7.9 10 7.9 0 0.0 1 0.8 4 3.2 5 4.0Legal Case 2 1.6 0 0.0 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0Misc. Certificates 30 23.8 28 22.2 2 1.6 9 7.1 17 13.5 4 3.2Old age Pension 7 5.6 7 5.6 0 0.0 3 2.4 3 2.4 1 0.8Building Plan Approval 11 8.7 10 7.9 1 0.8 3 2.4 5 4.0 3 2.4Retirement benefit 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0Scheme Benefit 24 19.0 19 15.1 5 4.0 5 4.0 14 11.1 5 4.0Tax Deposit 19 15.1 10 7.9 9 7.1 11 8.7 7 5.6 1 0.8Work order 9 7.1 7 5.6 2 1.6 1 0.8 5 4.0 3 2.4

Total 126 53.4 102 81.0 24 19.0 40 31.7 62 49.2 24 19.0

Most of the respondents faced difficulties to get their work in time.

53.4% of the respondents paid bribe to avail the services. Bribes are paid for all

the services at Urban Bodies to avoid unnecessary delay.

Majority of the persons paid bribe for getting Misc. Certificate

(23.8%), Scheme Benefit (19.0%), Tax Deposit (15.1%), Old age Pension (5.6%),

Approval of Building Plan (8.7%), Bill payment (4.8%), Land Settlement (7.9%)

and getting Work Order (7.1%). Out of the total bribe payers 81% paid bribes

directly to the concerned Officer/Clerk. Bribe was demanded from 31.7% of the

respondent in their first visit to the office followed by 49.2% in their second visits

and 19% in their third visits.

Rating of Curruption

High34%Medium

41%

Low25%



34.7% of the bribes payers rated the bribe amount as high followed by

41.1% as medium and rest 25.8% as low. Majority of the respondent, who had rated the

amount as high, paid bribe for the Building Plan approval.



No % No % No % Bill Payment 5 4.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 Certified Copy 3 2.4 1 0.8 1 0.8 Demand for civic services 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 Land Settlement 2 1.6 7 5.6 1 0.8 Legal Case 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 Misc. Certificates 5 4.0 12 9.7 13 10.5 Oldage Pension 1 0.8 3 2.4 3 2.4 Building Plan Apvl. 7 5.6 2 1.6 2 1.6 Retirement benefit 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 Scheme Benefit 8 6.5 13 10.5 3 2.4 Tax Deposit 4 3.2 8 6.5 7 5.6 Work order 3 2.4 4 3.2 2 1.6

Total 43 34.7 51 41.1 32 25.8 The bribe amount was above Rs. 500/- for 23.8% of the cases bribe paid

and the case maximum number of cases attracting higher bribe amount were for approval

of Building Plan.





< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

Bill Payment 1 0.8 5 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Certified Copy 2 1.6 0 0.0 3 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Demand for civic services 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Land Settlement 5 4.0 5 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Legal Case 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 1 0.8

Misc. Certificates 28 22.2 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Old age Pension 7 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Building Plan Approval 4 3.2 6 4.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Retirement benefit 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Scheme Benefit 13 10.3 6 4.8 5 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Tax Deposit 9 7.1 1 0.8 9 7.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Work order 4 3.2 3 2.4 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 75 59.5 27 21.4 20 15.9 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8




34.9% of the persons who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which 47.7% Person’s works are under process followed by 31.8% of persons

claimed that more bribes demanded from them, 15.9% said heavy work pressure

on the concerned staff and 4.5% said that their work is delayed by the middleman.


Reasons No. %



Work load on the concerned Staff 7 15.9


Total 44 34.9

Citizen perception on payment of bribe

35.7% of the persons paid bribe are satisfied with the result, rest 64.3% are

dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities include

ignorance about where to made complaints (14.3%), their work will be more

delayed (8.7%), lengthy procedure (9.5%), no faith in outcome (5.6%), fear of

retaliation (4%) and more expensive (4%).


14.3

9.5 8.7

5.64.0 4.0

02468

10121416

Ignorance LengthyProcedure

Fear of Delay No faith inoutcome

Retaliation Expensive




Reasons No. %

Work done 16 35.6

Quick result 8 17.8 No harassment 11 24.4 No repeat visits 7 15.6 Favours earned 3 6.7

Total 45 100.0


no harassment (24.4%), quick result (17.8%), no repeated visit (15.6%) and

favours earned from officers (6.7%).

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN URBAN LOCAL BODIES Corruption Experience



Tahsil 21% 79% 15% 23% 62% An overwhelming majority of the respondents deny corruption in

Urban Local bodies. 21% say yes and 79% say no experience of corruption.

Those who affirm corruption, of them 15% consider it high, 23% say medium and

62% say low.










The nodal officers in ULBs have identified Political Interference, low

salary and Lack of clear guidelines & protocols as primary causes of corruption.

They have not attached much importance to factors like Culture of demanding and

paying bribe and Interference by superior officials Departmental measures to check corruption


Yes No No Response

Yes No No Response



63% say measures taken are effective, 12% say those are not adequate and 25%


ULBs, 10% say it can be curbed but 10% deny such prospects. 29% respondents

did not comment on future of corruption in ULBs. Sub-Register Office MAJOR FINDINGS

Around 11% of the respondents interacted with Sub-Register Offices

Majority of the visitors (69%) interacted with Sub-Register Offices for land

registration

More than 60% of the respondents (62.8%) interacted with Sub-Register

Offices paid bribe for their works



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% of Visitors 69.0 20.8 5.8 2.7 1.8

% of work done 61.1 18.1 4.9 2.2 1.3

% Paid Bribe 43.4 10.6 4.9 2.2 1.8

Land Registration Certified copy Misc.

CertificatesMarriage

RegistrationDeed

Registration

61


Purpose of visit Visitors Number of visits No of visitors got work done1st 2nd More than 2

No % No % No % No % No % Certified copy of land records 47 20.8 31 13.7 6 2.7 10 4.4 41 18.1 Land Registration 156 69.0 101 44.7 33 14.6 22 9.7 138 61.1 Marriage Registration 6 2.7 5 2.2 0 0.0 1 0.4 5 2.2 Misc. Certificates (EC, Valuation) 13 5.8 10 4.4 3 1.3 0 0.0 11 4.9 Partition Deed Registration 4 1.8 0 0.0 3 1.3 1 0.4 3 1.3

Total 226 11.3 147 65.0 45 19.9 34 15.0 198 87.6 11.3% of the respondents had interacted with Sub-Register Offices.

The reasons for interaction are land registration (69%), to get certified copy of

land records (20.8%), to get misc. certificates like EC, Valuation, etc. (5.8%) and

other deeds registration (4.5%). It is very encouraging that 87.6% of the visitors

get their work done and only 15% of the visitors visited the office for more than

twice.



SERVICES FOR WHICH BRIBES ARE PAID


Visitors paid bribe



No % No % No % No % No % No % Certified copy of land records 24 16.9 14 9.9 10 7.0 13 9.2 9 6.3 2 1.4

Land Registration 98 69.0 55 38.7 43 30.3 71 50.0 24 16.9 3 2.1

Marriage Registration 5 3.5 3 2.1 2 1.4 1 0.7 2 1.4 0 0.0 Misc. Certificate (EC, Valuation) 11 7.7 4 2.8 7 4.9 3 2.1 4 2.8 4 2.8

Partition Deed Registration 4 2.8 3 2.1 1 0.7 2 1.4 2 1.4 0 0.0

Total 142 62.8 79 55.6 63 44.4 90 63.4 41 28.9 9 6.3

62.8% of the visitors paid bribes to get their work done. Out of which

69% for land registration, followed by 16.9% for certified copies of land records,

7.7% for misc. certificates and 6.3% for other deeds registration. Out of the total

bribe payers 56.6% paid bribes directly in cash to the concerned Officer/Clerk and

rest other (44.4%) paid indirectly through kinds and middlemen. Bribe was

demanded from the majority of the bribe payers in their first visits (63.4%) to the

office followed by 29.9% in second visits and rest 6.3% in other visits.


High45%

Medium37%

Low18%

44.4% of the bribes payers rated the corruption in the office as high

followed by 37.3% as medium and rest 18.3% as low. Majority of the visitors, who

had rated the amount as high, paid bribe for land registration.





Certified copy of land records 11 7.7 9 6.3 4 2.8

Land Registration 44 31.0 37 26.1 17 12.0

Marriage Registration 1 0.7 3 2.1 1 0.7

Misc. Certificate (EC, Valuation) 4 2.8 3 2.1 4 2.8

Partition Deed Registration 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0

Total 63 44.4 53 37.3 26 18.3 The bribe amount was above Rs. 500/- for 28.9% of the cases.

Higher amount in the form of bribe was paid for land registration.


Purpose




< 500 >500 < 500 >500 < 500 >500 No % No % No % No % No % No %

Certified copy of land records 11 7.7 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.2 4 2.8

Land Registration 39 27.5 16 11.3 7 4.9 0 0.0 22 15.5 14 9.9

Marriage Registration 3 2.1 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

Misc. Certificate (EC, Valuation) 3 2.1 1 0.7 6 4.2 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Partition Deed Registration 2 1.4 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

Total 58 40.8 21 14.8 14 9.9 1 0.7 29 20.4 19 13.4


3.5% of the visitors who had paid bribe did not get result. Out of

which 40% claimed that more bribes were demanded from them followed by

another 40% visitors saying the staffs delay processing by habit and rest 20%

visitors said that works are not done for absence of concerned officer.



REASONS FOR NOT GETTING ANY RESULT Reasons No. %


Absent of concerned officer 1 20.0

Habituated in delaying 2 40.0

Total 5 3.5 Visitors perception on payment of bribe

Whereas 31% of the persons paid bribe are satisfied with the result,

rest 69% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities

include ignorance about where to make complaints (14.8%), fear of work delayed

(17.6%), fear of retaliation (8.5%), no faith on outcome (16.2%), lengthy procedure

(4.2%), difficult to prove (6.3%) and more expensive (1.4%).

17.616.2

14.8

8.56.3

4.2 1.4

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

DelayNo faith in outcomeIgnorance RetaliationDifficult to ProveLengthy ProcedureMore Expensive

Percentage

Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official

or Vigilance Dept.

Reasons for satisfaction after payment of bribe

Reasons No. %

Work done 16 36.4

Quick result 18 40.9

No harassment 3 6.8

No more repeated visits 7 15.9

Total 44 100.0

The major reason for satisfaction is quick result (40.9%) followed by

work done (36.4%), no more repeated visits (15.9%) and no harassment (6.8%).



VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE Corruption Experience



Tahsil 16% 84% 11% 33% 56%

An overwhelming majority of the respondents deny corruption in Sub

Registrar Office. 16% say yes and 84% say no experience of corruption. Those

who affirm corruption, of them 11% consider it high, 33% say medium and 56%

say low.

Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage) Lack of adequate staff strength






The nodal officers in Sub Registrar Office have identified Lack of

adequate staff strength, low salary and Lack of clear guidelines & protocols as

primary causes of corruption. They have not attached much importance to factors

like Political Interference and Interference by superior officials

Departmental measures to check corruption Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate

Yes No No Response

Yes No No Response



50% say measures taken are effective, 50% say those are not adequate. 64% of

respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from Sub Registrar office,

11% say it can be curbed but 7% deny such prospects. 28% respondents did not

comment on future of corruption in this office.



CHAPTER - V

APPROACH AND ACTION BY NODAL OFFICERS Nodal officers in Block, Sub Division and District level offices were

approached during the study to ascertain their views on various issues concerning

corruption including corrupt practices if any in their respective offices. They were

encouraged to express their views and contribute for identifying all the causes and

factors that gives rise to and perpetuate corrupt practices in various government

offices. The analysis in this chapter refers to some key findings gathered through

interactions with the nodal officers during the study. CORRUPTION EXPERIENCE

28% 21% 23% 16% 18% 18% 14%

70% 72% 79% 77% 84% 82% 82% 86%

30%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

% Say No 70% 72% 79% 77% 84% 82% 82% 86%

% Say Yes 30% 28% 21% 23% 16% 18% 18% 14%

Block Tahsil ULB RTO Sub Registrar Police Treasury Land

Acquisitio

Contrary to the general perception, corruption has not been a major

experience as reported by the nodal officers interviewed in Block, Sub Division

and District level offices. 30% of them in Blocks, 28% in Tahsils, 21% in ULBs,

23% in RTO office, 16% in Sub Registrar office, 18% in Police Stations, 18% in

Treasury and 14% in Land Acquisition office admit to have come across corrupt

practices in respective offices. A great majority of them 70% in Blocks, 72% in

Tahsils, 79% in ULBs, 77% in RTO office, 84% in Sub Registrar office, deny such

experience.

The responses expressed by nodal officers greatly vary from those

expressed by rural citizens, traders, exit poll participants, Secretariat officers and

Reference Group members of whom more than 50% affirm corruption.



LEVEL CORRUPTION

32%

26%

42%

28%

33%

39%

15%

23%

62%

50%

25%

25%

11%

33%

56%

18%

82%

28%

36%

36%

24%

38%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% Say Low 42% 39% 62% 25% 56% 82% 36% 38%

% Say Medium 26% 33% 23% 25% 33% 18% 36% 38%

% Say High 32% 28% 15% 50% 11% 0% 28% 24%

Block Tahsil ULB RTOSub

Registrar

Police Treasury

Land Acquisition

Nodal officers are not unanimous about degree of corruption in

respective offices. 32% say high, 26% say medium and 42% say low in Blocks,

28% say high, 33% say medium and 39% say low in Tahsils, 15% say high, 23%

say medium and 62% say low in ULBs, 50% say high, 25% say medium and 25%

say low in RTO office, 11% say high, 33% say medium and 56% say low in Sub

Registrar office, 18% say medium and 82% say low in Police Stations, 28% say

high, 36% say medium and 36% say low in Treasury and 24% say high, 38% say

medium and 38% say low in Land Acquisition office. STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION

22%

10%

68%

17%

6%

77%

12%

9%

79%

13%

8%

79%

7%3%

90%

5%

82%

28%

36%

36%

7%2%

91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% No Response 68% 77% 79% 79% 90% 82% 36% 91%

% No 10% 6% 9% 8% 3% 5% 36% 2%

%Yes 22% 17% 12% 13% 7% 13% 28% 7%


Registrar

Police Treasury

Land Acquisition

13%



Again Nodal officers are not unanimous about steps taken to

address corruption in respective offices. 22% affirm steps, 10% say no and 68%

have not responded in Blocks, 17% affirm steps, 6% say no and 77% have not

responded in Tahsils, 12% affirm steps, 9% say no and 79% have not responded

in ULBs, 13% affirm steps, 8% say no and 79% have not responded in RTO

office, 7% affirm steps, 3% say no and 90% have not responded in Sub Registrar

office, 13% affirm steps, 5% say no and 82% have not responded in Police

Stations, 28% affirm steps, 36% say no and 36% have not responded in Treasury

and 7% affirm steps, 2% say no and 91% have not responded in Land Acquisition

office. The non response percentage is very high and needs immediate attention

to sensitize Nodal officers who probably are not aware about steps taken to

combat corruption.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEPS TAKEN

36%

50%

14%

55%

9%

36%

63%

12%

25%

44%

28%

28%

50%

50% 25%

12%

80%

20%

25%

50%

25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% No Response 14% 36% 25% 28% 12% 20% 25%

% No 50% 9% 12% 28% 50% 25% 50%

%Yes 36% 55% 63% 44% 50% 63% 80% 25%


Registrar

Police Treasury

Land Acquisition

63%

36% affirm steps are adequate, 50% say no and 14% have not

responded in Blocks, 55% affirm adequacy, 9% say no and 36% have not

responded in Tahsils, 63% affirm adequacy, 12% say no and 25% have not

responded in ULBs, 44% affirm adequacy, 28% say no and 28% have not

responded in RTO office, 50% affirm adequacy, 50% say no in Sub Registrar

office, 63% affirm adequacy, 25% say no and 12% have not responded in Police

Stations, 80% affirm adequacy and 20% have not responded in Treasury and 25%

affirm adequacy, 50% say no and 25% have not responded in Land Acquisition

office.



Causes/ Factors contributing for Corruption The nodal officers together have pointed out following causes in

order of priority for contributing to corruption in Government offices. The inter

office variations in prioritization has been reflected in chapter IV.

Lack of adequate staff strength Political Interference Culture of demanding and paying bribe Interference by superior officials Lack of clear guidelines & protocols Low salary

Sector-wise ranking of offices as per perceived degree of corruption by the Nodal Officers

Service sector No of

responses

Number of respondents as per views expressed

High Weightage

Value Medium Weightage

Value Low Weightage

Value

Total Weightage

Value Mean score

RTO 12 6 18 3 6 3 3 27 2.25 Treasury 11 3 9 4 8 4 4 21 1.91 Block 19 6 18 5 10 8 8 36 1.89 Tahasil 18 5 15 6 12 7 7 34 1.89 Land Acquisition 8 2 6 3 6 3 3 15 1.88 ULB 16 3 9 4 8 9 9 26 1.63 Sub Registrar 9 1 3 3 6 5 5 14 1.56

Police 11 0 0 2 4 9 9 13 1.18

As per the cumulative weightage value of responses given by nodal

officers the order of offices in terms of perceived degree of corruption starting from the

top is as follows:

RTO office Treasury office Block office Tahasil office Land Acquisition office Urban Local Bodies Sub Registrar office Police



Suggestions of Nodal Officers to strengthen departmental Drive against corruption

Office Suggestions

BLOCK

Set up vigilance cell with competent and honest staff

Department should educate citizens spreading legal literacy

Watch the activities of suspected staff confidentially & book cases at appropriate time with concrete evidence

Notify contact address and run help lines for public contact

Maintain proper records

Encourage social audit

Systems should be in place to address grievances and speedy disposal of cases.

TAHASIL/ REVENUE

Emphasize transparent and pro people working conditions

Notify messages against bribe payment in the office

Orient staff members for observance of conduct rules

Hold hearing for public grievances at notified days and timings

Hold mobile camps to dispense works in interior pockets

Encourage community groups and leaders to bring to notice of higher officials any case of corruption

Computerize land records for swift action

TRANSPORT

Install secret/ moving cameras in the office premises

Decentralize service delivery by camp approach

Raise staff strength to cope with workload

Institute and operationalize internal vigilance committee

Create confidence in public that it is possible to get their work done without payment of bribe.

Monitor the activities of private agents robbing people in broad daylight

Agent from RTO office to be removed by making raids upon them.



ULBs

Involve citizens and community leaders in planning and monitoring exercises

Remove ghost employees from pay rolls

Adopt transparent procedures for tenders and procurement contracts

Asses gaps between issue quantities and actual use by verification of records and field checking

Trap corrupt staff with the help of vigilance and police departments

Strict financial and quality audit should be made before any payment.

TREASURY

Drawing officers and staff involved in corruption in the name of treasury should be punished.

People should be made aware/conscious to protest against any degree of corruption, should seek the intervention of the administration/head of office on the spot and report it to the higher authority if allegation is not inquired

Heavy punishment should be given to the corrupt to discourage repetitions

Fix time scales for disposal of routine works

LAND ACQUISATION

The official facing trial should not have access to office files and documents to prevent manipulations

It should have a cadre of its own without being dependent on ad hoc deputations

It should be an autonomous body free from external interferences

It should computerize database and update database to facilitate utmost transparency in dealings

POLICE

The govt. should be approached to give sufficient funds to raise staff strength and logistic base of the police department

It should be equipped with modern equipment and technology along with vehicles for swift mobility.

Through training and guided supervision the seniors should imbibe strong moral character among the staff

The genuine needs of officers and staff should be met through salary increase, payment of over time and compensation for losses suffered being the member of police force taking action against criminals and powerful

Media should maintain balance in reporting cases and complicity of some police personnel if any



Perception of Nodal Officers about means to eliminate Corruption

Office Means to eliminate corruption

BLOCK

Improvement in day-to-day functioning & atmosphere of office with right type of incentive, better perks/ facilities to staffs.

Govt. should recognize the services of sincere employees for transparency and integrity by rewarding and honoring the officials

Officers with clean record should be appointed as BDOs.

TAHASIL

People must be educated not to pay bribe for any favour.

Head of the office should inspire staff by honest conduct.

Time should be fixed for each service with responsibility for delay for different services provided.

Adequate number of staff should be appointed to dispose of the work quickly.

All land related data should be computerized for quick action.

TRANSPORT

Citizen should be given the right to get services in fixed time frames.

Staff conduct should by constantly monitored by seniors.

Records and operations should be computerized.

Staff position should be increased to cope with workload.

MUNICIPALITY

Social audit may work to improve staff performance in field situations.

Citizens should be sensitized not to oblige demands for bribe.

Salary of municipal staff should be at par with other state government employees.

Cashbook and cash verification should be made frequently. Payment to be made through Account Payee Cheques.

Political interference should be strictly dealt by senior officials.

REVENUE

Grievance box should be introduced and handled by senior officials at least on weekly basis.

Staff should be sensitized to render self less public service.

Every employee should know his/her own responsibility.

All office records and works should be transacted through computers.



TREASURY

Adequate staff strength can address corruption.

Good administration and conduct by head is essential.

Awareness should be raised about Rules & Regulation among Govt. officials general public.

Time should be fixed for each service with responsibility for delay for different services provided.

LAND ACQUISATION

Payment by Cheque can reduce corruption.

The compensation package should be decided on the basis of clearly laid down objective criteria.

Senior officers should cross check compensation package on random basis to deal with manipulation if any.

POLICE

Proper monitoring by senior officers.

Staff salary should be enhanced to match with risk and services rendered.

Duty hours should be reduced from 24hrs to 8-12hrs.

Honesty and efficiency should be rewarded with promotion and cash incentives.

Proper compensation should be paid to staff suffering losses on duty.

Summary of Nodal Officers about means to eliminate Corruption

Time limit should be fixed to dispose work.

Responsibility should be fixed for delay without valid reason.

Adequate staff strength should be maintained to cope with work load.

Office records and transactions should be computerized to promote efficiency and transparency.

Salary and compensation package of Govt. staff should be reviewed and enhanced to reduce vulnerability for corruption.

Public and staff should be sensitized to address culture of demanding and paying bribe

Exemplary conduct and Monitoring by superior officers is very essential. Awareness should be raised about Rules & Regulation among Govt. officials

general public.

Citizens should be sensitized not to oblige demands for bribe.

Grievance box should be introduced and handled by senior officials at least on weekly basis.

Govt. should recognize the services of sincere employees for transparency and integrity by rewarding and honoring the officials.



Views of Nodal Officers on Prospects to eliminate Corruption in future.

Department/ Office

No of respondents

No of respondents by views expressed

Can be eliminated

Can’t be eliminated

Can be curbed

No response

Block 52 55.77 7.69 21.15 15.38

Tahasil 53 50.94 15.09 18.87 15.09

Transport 44 52.27 2.27 29.55 15.91

Municipality 51 50.98 9.80 9.80 29.41

Sub Registrar 44 63.64 6.82 11.36 18.18

Treasury 50 52.00 10.00 14.00 24.00

Land Acquisition 37 51.35 5.41 10.81 32.43

Police Station 48 43.75 8.33 22.92 25.00

C.D.A. 3 66.67 0.00 33.33 0.00

B.D.A. 2 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00

Time limit should be fixed to dispose work.

Responsibility should be fixed for delay without valid reason.

Adequate staff strength should be maintained to cope with work load.

Office records and transactions should be computerized to promote efficiency and transparency.



CHAPTER VI

APPROACH AND ACTION BY SECRETARIAT OFFICERS Views of Secretariat Officers about Corruption in his/her department Department Number Views on corruption If yes, Degree of corruption

Yes % No % High % Medium % Low % Agriculture 3 3 100 0 0 2 67 1 33 0 0 C&T(T) 2 2 100 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 Cooperation 3 1 33 2 67 0 0 1 100 0 0 Energy 2 1 50 1 50 1 100 0 0 0 0 Excise 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 1 100 0 0 Finance 6 5 83 1 17 3 60 1 20 1 20 Fishery & AR 2 1 50 1 50 1 100 0 0 0 0 Forest 2 2 100 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 FS & CW 3 2 67 1 33 0 0 1 50 1 50 GA Dept. 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 H &UD 3 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Health & FW 3 2 67 1 33 0 0 1 50 1 50 Higher Education 4 3 75 1 25 0 0 2 67 1 33 Home 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 Industry 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 I & PR 3 3 100 0 0 2 67 1 33 0 0 Labour & Emp 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Law 2 2 100 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 Panchayati Raj 3 3 100 0 0 1 33 2 67 0 0 Planning 3 3 100 0 0 1 33 1 33 1 33 Public Enterprises 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 Revenue 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 Rural Devt 2 1 50 1 50 1 100 0 0 0 0 School & ME 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 Sports & YA 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST & SC Devt. 4 2 50 2 50 1 50 1 50 0 0 Steel & Mines 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 1 100 0 0 Transport 3 1 33 2 67 1 100 0 0 0 0 W & CD 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 Water Resources 4 4 100 0 0 2 50 1 25 1 25 WOCD 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 1 100 0 0 Works 5 2 40 3 60 1 50 1 50 0 0 Total 90 62 69 28 31 21 34 32 52 9 15



AFIRMATION OF CORRUPTION IN HIS/HER DEPARTMENT

69% of Secretariat officers affirm knowledge of corruption in respective departments.

31% of Secretariat officers deny knowledge of corruption in respective

departments.

Awareness on corruption in respective department

No, 31%

Yes, 69%

RATING OF CORRUPTION IN HIS/HER DEPARTMENT

52% of Secretariat officers affirm level of corruption in respective departments as high.

34% of Secretariat officers affirm level of corruption in respective

departments as medium.

15% of Secretariat officers affirm level of corruption in respective departments as low.

RATING OF CORRUPTION

Low, 15%

High, 34%Medium, 52%



STEPS TO CHECK CORRUPTION IN HIS/HER DEPARTMENT

39% of Secretariat officers affirm that steps are being taken to address

corruption in respective departments.

31% of Secretariat officers say no steps are being taken to address corruption in respective departments.

30% of Secretariat officers do not respond whether steps are being taken

to address corruption in respective departments.

STEPS TAKEN TO CHECK CORRUPTION

Yes, 39%

No, 31%

No Response, 30%

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEPS TO CHECK CORRUPTION IN HIS/HER DEPARTMENT

36% of Secretariat officers affirm that steps are being taken to address

corruption in respective departments are effective.

37% of Secretariat officers say steps taken to address corruption in respective departments are not effective.

28% of Secretariat officers do not respond whether steps are being taken

to address corruption in respective departments are effective . EFFECTIVENESS OF STEPS TAKEN TO CHECK CORRUPTION

Yes, 36%

No, 37%

No Response, 28%



SECTOR-WISE RANKING OF DEPARTMENTS AS PER PERCEIVED DEGREE OF CORRUPTION BY THE SECRETARIAT OFFICERS

Service sector

No of responses


High Weightage Value

Medium Weightage Value

Low Weightage Value

Total Weightage

Value

Mean score

Excise 14 11 33 3 6 0 0 39 2.79

WR 40 31 93 7 14 2 2 109 2.73

Works 49 38 114 8 16 3 3 133 2.71

ST/CT 3 2 6 1 2 0 0 8 2.67

GA 17 12 36 4 8 1 1 45 2.65

S & ME 32 22 66 7 14 3 3 83 2.59

H & UD 14 10 30 2 4 2 2 36 2.57

Steel & M 7 5 15 1 2 1 1 18 2.57

Energy 9 6 18 2 4 1 1 23 2.56

PR 33 21 63 8 16 4 4 83 2.52

Transport 12 8 24 2 4 2 2 30 2.50

Forest 6 4 12 1 2 1 1 15 2.50

RD 31 18 54 10 20 3 3 77 2.48

FS &CW 14 7 21 5 10 2 2 33 2.36

Industries 6 2 6 4 8 0 0 14 2.33

Health 33 16 48 12 24 5 5 77 2.33

HE 18 9 27 6 12 3 3 42 2.33 ST/SC Devt 5 2 6 2 4 1 1 11 2.20

Finance 6 3 9 1 2 2 2 13 2.17

Agriculture 7 2 6 3 6 2 2 14 2.00

Revenue 6 1 3 3 6 2 2 11 1.83

WCD 6 1 3 3 6 2 2 11 1.83

Planning 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1.00

As per ranking done on the basis of cumulative averages, Excise,

Water Resources and Public Works Departments are most vulnerable to

corruption. Revenue, Women and Child Development and Planning &

Coordination departments are found least vulnerable and involved in corrupt

practices.



Factors Causing Corruption Ranking of factors in order of intensity by Secretariat Officers

Rank 1 Discretionary powers enjoyed by officials

Rank 2 Lack of fixed time limit to dispose work

Rank 3 Culture of demanding and paying bribe

Rank 4 Low salary package of Govt. staff

Rank 5 Political Interference

Rank 6 Lack of adequate staff strength Class Involved

32%

8%

19%

1%

13%

27%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

Class I Class II Class III Class IV All No Response

32% of Secretariat officers say class I employees are more corrupt.

8% of Secretariat officers say class II employees are more corrupt.

19% of Secretariat officers say class III employees are more corrupt.

1% of Secretariat officers say class IV employees are more corrupt.

13% of Secretariat officers say all categories of employees are corrupt.

27% of Secretariat officers do not respond the question.



Opinion of Secretariat Officers about steps taken to check corruption from their respective offices.

♪ Commercial Tax Department.

Vigilance cell should be created within the department

♪ Excise Department.

Strict Disciplinary proceedings against the corrupt staff

♪ Food & Civil Supply Department.

Widespread awareness generation against corruption

♪ Finance Department.

Regular monitoring by higher authorities

♪ Forest & Environment Department.

Strict observance of rules and procedures

♪ General Administration Department.

Computerized database and disposal of office work

♪ Housing & Urban Development Department.

Time bound disposal of work.

Grievance officer should be appointed to facilitate appeals/settlements

♪ Health & Family Welfare Department.

Allotment of tasks on rotation basis to avoid links and entry of vested interests

Appointment of adequate number of staff

♪ Home Department.



Quick and timely disposal of cases and files

♪ Information & Public Relations Department.

Regular monitoring and review by higher authorities.

♪ Law Department.

Frequent transfer across sections.

♪ Panchayati Raj Department.

Multi-level monitoring through MIS and community involvement.

♪ Planning & Coordination Department.

Time fixed for disposal of works.

Penalty for delay by negligence.

♪ School and Mass Education Department.

Regular monitoring by higher authorities

Adequate staff strength

♪ SC & ST Development Department.

Curbing use of discretionary powers.

Percentage.

♪ Women & Child Development Department.

Stress on transparency in financial transactions

♪ Water Resources Department.

Time bound disposal of work Supervision by higher staff Quality checks



♪ Works Department.

Regular transfer and posting of office as well as field staff Strict action against corrupt

Perception of Secretariat Officers as to why it is not possible to eliminate corruption from respective office

Lack of Political and Administrative will

Discretion powers enjoyed by officers and ministers

Poor rate of conviction and punishment

People scramble for favours and quick action

Demoralization and harassment faced by the honest few

Poor rate of complaint by the aggrieved for fear of delay or retaliation

Majority are ignorant about legal remedies

Raise public awareness

Citizens, media and civil society groups not adequately involved in anti

corruption drives

Perception of Secretariat Officers on steps necessary to address corruption

Establishment of internal vigilance cell in each department

Laying down transparent procedures to dispose work in reasonable time

frame

Higher officers should be punctual and disciplined

Proper monitoring of actions of subordinates by higher officers.

Quick proceedings and convictions in all allegations on corruption

Deterrent punishment to corrupt staff

Citizen Charters detailing entitlements

Publicity about consumer rights and entitlements

Community involvement and social audit

Adoption of E- Governance



CHAPTER VII REFERENCE GROUP’s PERCEPTION ON CORRUPTION Views of Reference Group Members about major causes of corruption

Category Major causes of corruption

Retd. Govt. Official

Ineffective monitoring by senior officials

Nexus between politicians, mafia and administration

Lack of strict and timely audit

No check on quality of work or items procured

Misuse of discretionary powers under the influence of vested interests

NGO Functionary

Concentration of power in few hands with little devolution downwards Lack of public debate and action against corruption

Willingness to pay bribe to get the favours without delay and harassment

Media Person

No fixed time to get work done creating scope for intentional delays to bargain for bribe in exchange of favourable decision and case disposal Craze to get rich overnight by hook or crook

Lack of convictions and exemplary punishment

Academic

Over regimentation and control through license-permit raj

No attempt to promote values like accountability and transparency No action by intellectuals and citizen groups to check corruption

Lawyer

Involvement from top to bottom abolishes fear of superiors

High profile cases escape through pressure and fraudulent means causing demoralization for the honest officers

Lengthy and loose trial processes encouraging the corrupt to ignore consequences

Trade Union Leader

Lack of political and administrative will to fight corruption

Focus on individual failure instead of systemic deficiency

Fear of retaliation and vindictive action by the corrupt



Sector-wise ranking of departments as per perceived degree of corruption by the Reference Group Members

SERVICE SECTOR

Service sector

No of responses


High Weightage Value Medium Weightage

Value Low Weightage Value

Total Weightage

Value

Mean score

Police 27 16 48 11 22 0 0 70 2.6

ULBs 27 15 45 10 20 2 2 67 2.5

Health 28 10 30 15 30 3 3 63 2.3

Cooperatives 27 10 20 12 24 5 5 49 1.8

School Education 27 10 20 11 22 6 6 48 1.8

Higher Education 28 4 8 17 34 7 7 49 1.8

Judicial Services 26 6 12 11 22 9 9 43 1.7

REVENUE & LICENSING SECTOR

Revenue & Licensing

Sector No of

response




Total Value

Mean score

Excise 29 25 75 3 6 1 1 82 2.83

Sales & Commercial Tax

26 19 57 7 14 0 0 71 2.73

Sub Registrar 28 20 60 6 12 2 2 74 2.64

Tahasil 27 12 36 15 30 0 0 66 2.44

RTO 27 15 45 8 16 4 4 65 2.41

Industry (DIC) 24 4 12 10 20 10 10 42 1.75



WORKS/ CONTRACTS SECTOR

Works/ Contracts

Sector No of

response




Total Value

Mean score

Works 28 25 75 3 6 0 0 81 2.89

Water Resources 27 21 66 5 10 1 1 77 2.85

Block 27 15 45 11 22 1 1 68 2.52

Rural Devt. 28 12 36 14 28 2 4 68 2.43

DRDA 27 10 30 16 32 1 1 63 2.33

MISCELLANEOUS SECTOR

Others No of response




Total Value

Mean score

Forest 27 16 48 10 20 1 1 69 2.56NGOs 28 14 42 7 14 7 7 63 2.25Agriculture 27 3 9 15 30 9 9 48 1.78

Instances and Patterns of Collusive Corruption In the due course of the study these Reference Group Members

were asked to illustrate some instances and patterns of collusive corruption from

their experiences. These are such instances where a nexus operates involving a

number of persons to commit frauds and acts of corruption. The combination may

include a number of officials from different departments and private individuals:

Some of the illustrations of collusive corruption in Orissa are as follows:



Illustrations by Retired Government Officials

Collection of monthly quota of bribe in cash and kind by Police/Excise

staff from illicit liquor vendors, Passenger and goods carriers,

baggage lifters and drug peddlers.

Tender fixing based on information leakage in connivance with corrupt

officials and staff.

Collection of fixed percentage for work orders, supply contracts, bill

manipulation by a chain of officials in collaboration with vested

interests.

Tax evasion by business firms, manufacturing units, service

institutions in collusion with chartered accountants, tax collectors and

enforcement authorities.

Manipulation in ration card numbers to get huge quota of kerosene for

black market operations and adulteration in collusion with civil supply

officials, storage agents, dealers and black marketers.

Public auction of administrative and judicial decisions by a nexus

between contact agents operating from concerned agencies and

departments.

Selective use of discretionary powers to accommodate business and

political interests on issues concerning land and mining leases,

privatization of public utilities, environment clearance, certification by

pollution control boards etc. Illustrations by NGO Functionaries

Partisan decisions to allow land grab and exceptional concessions at

the cost of public interest in the name of industrialization.



Recycling of paddy, rice and food grains issued by FCI through

contractors, mill owners and officials of concerned agencies and

departments.

Fixing examination results in exchange of bribe through examiners,

authorities and private agents networks operating from village onward

to state.

Bypassing Gram Sabhas, Palli Sabhas in planning and

implementation of poverty alleviation schemes by a joint conspiracy of

corrupt officials, Panchayat representatives and vested interests.

Illustrations by Media Persons

Nexus to create convenient examination centers for malpractices in +2

council and other board/ university examinations

Collection of bribe to the tune of 2% to 5%of the total amount issued

as letter of credit (LC) under various departments with special

reference to Works, Water Resources and other Engineering units.

Misappropriation of funds by key officials involved in autonomous

externally aided projects in areas of health, poverty eradication,

infrastructure works, forestry, HIV/AIDS, Tribal Development and

Backward district development through a large nexus of parties

ranging from relatives to all kinds of vested interests.

Huge kickbacks are the order of the day in recruitment to regular and

contractual posts involving officials, politicians and private agents

striking the deals with aspirants. The scam alleged in recruitment to

Orissa State Armed Police pointing fingers at top police officials is a

case in point.

Indiscriminate distribution of prime urban land at questionable price

and to individuals and institutions of doubtful credentials underscore

the fact of black deals being struck as a result of nexus between

politicians, bureaucrats, land mafia and influential sections in society.



Many skeletons can be dug out if one sincerely digs the relevant files

targeting Cuttack, Puri and Bhubaneswar to begin with.

Some ministers like the ones in charge of Urban Development

Department doles out government land will by display of so called

discretionary powers enjoyed by him/her.

In School and Mass Education dept. teachers face harassment during

transfer seasons just to force payment of bribes for higher officials

In engineering departments, it has become a practice to raise false

bills, inflate bill amount, show false loads, leads, nature of soil just to

cheat the government in collusion with contractors. False and fictitious

billing is a common practice in most working departments.

Corruption is more pronounced in offices where one person has

enormous powers to take decisions.

Those in the helms of affairs in excise department and Orissa

Beverages corporation should be watched by multiple agencies to

expose corrupt deals which destroy lives of the poor and vital tax

earnings of the government.

Autonomous agencies created under various Departments may be

classic examples of collusive corruption since funds in those accounts

are freely used to accommodate works that are not permitted. Illustrations by Academics

Examination centres are fixed on political pressure. Even squad

members are chosen by political people. The examination officials

sometimes destroy evidences against students.

Students obtain false Caste, Income, Sports and Physically

Handicapped certificates through the powerful nexus of officials and

agents operating such rackets.



Consumers are being cheated regularly by electricity meter readers,

petrol pumps and other dealers of public services with no check on

these culprits whatsoever.

Huge corruption takes place in selection of beneficiaries under

government schemes meant for the poor. The rot spreads from wrong

IAY allotments to allocation of Houses and plots by BDA.

For obtaining Driving licenses, on road fitness of vehicle, a consumer

has to pay almost equivalent amount of the fees as bribe thanks to

lack of fair means to get the work done in a reasonable time frame.

In departments like DRDA, Block, R.D, Public works etc. Work orders

and final settlement of the bills generate bribe up to 20 to 25 percent

of the value of work.



CHAPTER - VIII

VIEWS ON PERFORMANCE OF VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT

Rural Citizen’s awareness about Vigilance Department undertaking Anti-corruption drives.

Response Gender Social Background Economic

Background Occupational Background

Males Females ST/SC Others APL BPL Service Business Others

VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT

Aware 215 18 54 179 134 99 33 46 154

Percentage 35.47 13.84 20 8.41 40 24.69 36.26 45.54 28.31

Not Aware 125 21 69 77 49 97 8 34 104

Percentage 20.63 16.15 25.56 16.52 14.63 24.19 8.79 33.66 19.12 No

response 266 91 147 256 152 228 50 21 309

Percentage 43.89 70 54.44 54.94 45.37 56.86 54.95 20.79 56.8

Trader’s awareness about Vigilance department undertaking anti corruption drives

Response Gender Social

Background Economic


Males Female ST/SC Others APL BPL Service Business Others

Aware 110 2 9 70 48 15 5 103 4

Percentage 54.73 50 47.37 37.63 26.97 55.56 55.56 56.91 26.76

Not Aware 61 1 3 59 58 4 4 52 6

Percentage 30.35 25 15.79 31.72 32.58 14.81 44.44 28.73 40 No

response 30 1 7 57 72 8 0 26 5

Percentage 14.93 25 36.84 30.65 40.45 29.63 0 33.33

Awareness level of Exit Poll Participants on Vigilance Department: N=1995

Response Gender Social

Background Economic


Males Females ST SC Others APL BPL Service Business Others

Aware 1087 31 53 70 995 831 287 271 353 494

Not Aware 595 84 141 137 401 323 356 70 72 537

No response 116 82 85 92 21 175 23 20 38 140

Total 1798 197 279 299 1417 1329 666 361 463 1171



Rural Citizens and Trader’s views on action taken by vigilance department

against corruption

Response No of respondents

Gender Social Background

Economic Background

Occupational Background


Satisfied 153 138 15 36 117 92 61 26 41 86

Not satisfied

124 115 9 35 89 69 55 12 40 72

No response

664 554 110 218 446 365 299 62 201 401

Total 941 807 134 289 652 526 415 100 282 559

Rural Citizens and Trader’s views on reasons for satisfaction

with the work of vigilance department

Reason for satisfaction

No of respondents


Economic Background


Males

Females

ST/SC Others APL BPL Service Business

Others

Citizens protected

26 24 2 7 19 12 14 2 6 18

Corrupt punished

26 20 6 4 22 14 12 4 8 14

Corruption checked

49 45 4 11 38 34 15 12 18 19

Time and Money saved

12 13 1 2 10 9 3 3 2 7

Quality of service delivery improved

40 31 7 8 32 32 8 5 18 17

Total 153 133 20 32 121 101 52 26 52 75



Rural Citizens and Trader’s views on reasons for dissatisfaction with the work of vigilance department

Reason for dissatisfaction

No of respondents


Economic Background



Late Response

26 24 2 8 18 20 6 1 8 17

Lengthy Procedure

42 41 1 12 30 28 14 4 9 29

Poor Publicity

25 22 3 5 20 4 21 1 7 17

Collusion by some corrupt staff

16 15 1 5 11 13 3 5 7 4

Very few Convictions

15 13 2 5 10 4 11 1 9 5

Total 124 115 9 35 89 69 55 12 40 72

Nature of

work Responses EPP Reasons for not complaining to vigilance department

Ignorance Delay Retaliation Lengthy procedure Expensive No faith in

outcome Others

Total 880

261 209 50 95 87 121 57

Percentage 29.66 23.75 5.68 10.80 9.89 13.75 6.48

Table- Perception of Nodal Officers about effectiveness of vigilance

department in checking typical cases of corruption in respective office

Department/ Office No of respondents

Views about Vigilance Dept.

Effective Percentage Not Effective Percentage

Block 58 26 44.83 32 55.17 Tahasil 58 20 34.48 38 65.52 Transport 46 26 56.52 20 43.48 Municipality 51 23 45.10 28 54.90 Revenue 51 23 45.10 28 54.90 Treasury 54 23 42.59 31 57.41 Land Acquisition 48 15 31.25 33 68.75 Police Station 53 22 41.51 31 58.49 C.D.A. 3 2 66.67 1 33.33 B.D.A. 2 0 0.00 2 100.00



Table-Perception of Nodal Officers about effectiveness of vigilance

department in checking typical cases of corruption in respective office

Response Block Tahasil Transport Municipality Sub

Registrar Treasur

y LA Police

Effective 12 9 8 7 4 4 3 9

Percentage 19.05 14.06 15.09 10.29 6.90 6.45 5.08

15.00

Not Effective 5 3 2 5 2 1 2 1

Percentage 7.94 4.69 3.77 7.35 3.45 1.61 3.39 1.67

No Response 46 52 43 56 52 57 54 50

Percentage 73.02 81.25 81.13 82.35 89.66 91.94 91.53

83.33

Table- Views of Reference Group Members about performance of Vigilance Department

Category Number

Level of satisfaction

Fully Satisfied % Not

satisfied % Partially satisfied % No

response %

Retd. Govt. Official 6 1 17 2 33 3 50 0 0

NGO Functionary 2 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0

Media Person 7 0 0 3 43 4 57 0 0

Academic 10 2 20 2 20 4 40 2 20

Lawyer 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others 3 0 0 1 33 2 67 0 0

Total 29 5 17 9 31 13 45 2 7



Perception of Nodal Officers about ineffectiveness of vigilance department in checking corruption

Vigilance Department is not adapting proper procedure and some times it is not impartial

While investigating Vigilance Department is examining the office records, not recording public opinions

Vigilance Department id not disclosing all the cases of corruptions

Some officers of Vigilance Department are also doing corruptions (taking bribes) to suppress the cases

Like police the Vigilance Department is only running after some typical cases

Public has no information about the vigilance office in their locality

Interference of political people in activities of Vigilance Department

Views of Reference Group Members about present scope of

work of Vigilance Deptt.

Suggestions for expansion Cover all cases of corruption Focus on tenders, contracts & lease agreements Add advocacy as a policy reform agenda Human trafficking Mining leases and land allotments Lack of transparency in official decision-making NGO activities with reference to funds and expenditure Political corruption Working of Govt. owned autonomous societies & corporations Appointments and transfers in key positions Willful tempering of govt. records Education trade by private institutions Studies and Research to eliminate loose ends in law Investigate role of mafias in different deals Corrupt practices in judicial system Conduct and involvement of media persons in deals Corruption involved in administrative and judicial decisions Corruption in urban local bodies



Rural Citizens and Trader’s Suggestions for strengthening Vigilance Dept. Suggestions for strengthening Vigilance Dept

No of respondents


Economic Background



Publicize Contact address/ Helpline

29 26 3 10 19 8 21 2 12 15

Establish Cells Block onwards

32 28 4 15 17 12 20 5 4 23

Increase Squad Strength

27 24 3 11 16 14 13 9 6 12

Speed up investigation/ convictions

30 29 1 5 25 18 12 7 8 15

Wide media coverage of activities

41 37 4 8 33 27 14 5 7 29

Strict monitoring of field staff

36 31 5 6 30 28 8 3 19 14

Punish corrupt staff

35 33 2 8 27 28 7 3 16 16

Cover all cases of corruption

47 45 2 8 39 26 21 4 9 34

Total 277 253 24 71 206 161 116 38 81 158

Exit Poll participant’s Suggestions for strengthening Vigilance Dept

Awareness through multi media campaigns

Book corrupt politicians

Cover rural and tribal areas

Efficient and upright be brought on deputation

Fight percentage culture

Involve civil society institutions

Publish Newsletter

Wide publicity of role and activities



Key Suggestions of Nodal Officers to strengthen working of Vigilance Department

Vigilance dept should take effective steps to increase public awareness

It should have strong network to collect information from different sources

Should take stern action against the corrupt staffs and public representatives

Ensure speedy investigations

Ensure quick proceedings and convictions against the corrupts

Publicize achievements for winning confidence of the people

Train field officers on techniques to curb corruption

Increase staff strength and resources for effective outreach

Recruit high officials from different departments reducing exclusive dependence on police department

Target private mafias forcing corrupt practices through weak politicians

Conduct interface meetings to promote strong networks against corruption

Focus on tribal and rural areas

Maintain autonomy and integrity against pressure from external quarters

Key Suggestions of Secretariat Officers to strengthen working of Vigilance Department

Frequent raids and regular media coverage on raids & convictions

Establish vigilance cells in each block

Creation of Vigilance Cell in each department

Devise strategies for preventive action to reduce quantum and incidence

Ensure quick proceedings and convictions

It should not be target oriented rather should be action oriented

Expand staff strength to ensure better outreach

Regular training and exposure for up-gradation of knowledge and skills of vigilance staff

Run help lines and publish newsletter for regular client contact and communication



Suggestions of Reference Group Members to strengthen working of Vigilance Deptt.

Department/ Office

Suggestions

Retd. Govt. Official

Introduce social audit through civil society institutions

Encourage efficient, honest and effective workers and organizations

Maintain full transparency in working of vigilance department

Fix time limits for disposal corruption cases

Publicize proceedings and convictions

NGO Functionary

Stop fraudulent dealings by some field staff

Conduct surprise raids

Expose corruption in high places involving high volumes

Mount transparency measures to address petty corruption

Recruit and retain honest and competent officers in key positions

Media Person

Improve rate of conviction

Cut down lengthy procedures through effective case management strategies

Track politicians and senior bureaucrats from where corruption begins

Cover NGO corruption

Use IEC strategies to foster a public movement against corruption

Academic

Facilitate Proper implementation of Right to Information Act.

Take so motto action against reported cases of corruption

Generate Public Awareness about the role of vigilance dept. must be created on regular basis using all means of communication

More autonomy, power and resources should be available to modernize operations making it efficient and effective

Privatize service delivery for Driving License, Building Plan approval, Birth/Death certificates etc. through franchise and regulated user fee structures

Lawyer

Vigilance Department should set up complaint box in each office

It should closely monitor dealings in tribal and backward areas where no one bothers about corruption due to rampant illiteracy and indifference

Strong advocacy is necessary to free it from undue administrative and political interferences

Others

Build up networks of committed individuals and organizations to catch corrupt practices and expedite investigations

Take stern action against the corrupt within including raids on the houses of corrupt vigilance officers

Provide incentives and publicize achievements of good officers to inspire public confidence



Key Suggestions of Nodal Officers to strengthen working of Vigilance Department

Department/ Office

Suggestions

BLOCK

Vigilance dept should take effective steps to increase awareness.

It should have strong network to collect information from different quarters

Should take stern action against the corrupt staff and public representative.

TAHASIL

Develop close contact and day to day liaison with field departments

Conduct speedy investigations without fear and favour

Publicize achievements for confidence building and public education

TRANSPORT

Appreciate the legal and institutional environment giving rise to corruption and suggest remedial measures

Train field officers on techniques to curb corruption

Book corrupt officials and try for early convictions

MUNICIPALITY

Increase staff strength and resources for effective outreach

Use modern technology to collect conclusive evidence

Educate consumers of services to fight corruption

REVENUE

Recruit high officials from different departments reducing exclusive dependence on police department only

Target private mafias forcing corrupt practices through weak politicians

Focus on most corrupt departments

TREASURY

Punish corrupt staff within vigilance department

Reward honest and efficient officials in public

Conduct interface meetings to promote strong networks against corruption

LAND ACQUISITION

Expedite inquiries and convictions

Focus on tribal and rural areas

Maintain autonomy and integrity against pressure from external quarters



ANNEXURES RESPONDENT PROFILE STATEWIDE DATA

Respondent Profile (Geographical)

48% 52%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Value

Urban-1689

Rural-1853

Total-3542

Gender Profile of Respondents

10%

90% 100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Female Male Total

Perc

enta

ge Female-359

Male-3183

Total-3542

Social Profile of Respondents

14% 16%

70%100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

SC ST Others Total

Perc

enta

ge

SC-412

ST-455

Others-2069

Total-2936

Economic Profile of Respondents

38%62%

100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Perc

enta

ge BPL-1118

APL-1818

Total-2936



Profile of Rural Respondents

Occupational Profile of Respondents

18%30%

52%

100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Business-645

Service-1053

Others-1844

Total-3542

Gender Profile

18%

82%100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Perc

enta

ge Female-130

Male-606

Total-736

Social Profile

13% 23%63%

100%

0%50%

100%150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge SC-98ST-172Others-466Total-736

Economic Profile

46% 54%

100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Perc

enta

ge APL-335

BPL-401

Total-736



Profile Trade Unit Owners

Occupational profile

12% 14%

74%

100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

Service-91

Business-101

Others-544

Total-736

Gender Profile

2%

98% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge Female-4

Male-201

Total-205

Social Profile

2% 7%

91% 100%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

ST-4

SC-15

Others-186

Total-205

Economic profile

13%

87% 100%

0%50%

100%150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

BPL-27 APL-178 Total-205

Occupational profile

5% 7%

88% 100%

0%50%

100%150%

1

Service-9 Others-15 Business-181 Total-205



Profile of Exit Poll Participants

0

2000

Economic Profile

Number 666 1329

Percentage 33.38% 66.62%

BPL APL

Gend er Pro f i le

10%

90% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

1

Female-197 Male-1798 Tot al-1995

Social Profile

14% 15%

71%100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

ST-279 SC-299 Ot hers-1417 Tot al

Geographical Profile

44% 56%

100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

1

Urban-878 Rural-1117 Tot al-1995100%

Occupational Profile

44% 56% 59%100%

0%50%

100%150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

Service-361 Business-463 Others-1171 Total-1995



Profile Nodal Officers

Gender Profile

4%

96% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

Female-19 Male-468 Total-487

Length of service

11%

89% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

Below 10 years-56 Above 10 Years-431 Total-487

Time spent in the present post

17%

83% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

Below 10 years-83 Above 10 Years-404 Total-487

Office- w ise Number of Respondents: N=487

70

65

506558

61

5959

BlockTehsil/ RI officeRoad TransportMunicipalityLand RegistrationTreasuryLand Acquisition



Profile of Secretariat Officers Profile of Reference Group Members

Professional Background

4% 7% 10%21% 24%

34%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Value

Law yer-1

NGO persons-2

Professionals-3

Retd.Officers-6

Media-7

Academics-10

Total-29

Gender Profile

14%

86% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

1


Gender Profile

6%

94% 100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge


Rank Profile

41% 59%100%

0%

50%

100%

150%

Value

Perc

enta

ge

SO & below -37 US & above-53 Total-90



Questionnaire No.1 DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE: ORISSA, CUTTACK

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CITIZENS (For Rural People & Urban Traders)

District Block Village Village

Code

Name of the Trade Unit

Location TU Code

RESPONDENT PARTICULARS

1 Name 2 Father/ Husband’s Name 3 Address

4 Age 5. Sex (Male-1, Female-2) 6. Economic Status

(APL-1, BPL-2)

7 Caste (SC-1, ST-2, OBC-3, Gen.-4)

8 Qualification (Illiterate-1, Primary-2, Middle-3, Secondary-4, Higher Secondary-5, Graduation-6, Post Graduation-7, Technical diploma-8, Technical degree-9

9 Profession (Cultivation-1, Business-2, Govt. Service-3, Private service-4, Retired person-5, Wage Labour-6, Other-7)

Part I : Awareness on Corruption 10 Are you aware about instance(s ) of corruption in government sector? Yes-1, No-2.

11 If Yes, Name the departments/office indicating degree of corruption involved- High-1, Medium-2, and Low-3.

Name of Department/Office High Medium Low a b c d e f g h i j

12 Have you or anybody in your family paid bribe during last one year (365 days) ? Yes-1, No-2. if yes, fill up the following.

If Yes, directly 1, indirectly 2

Item Case-I Case-II Case-III Purpose for paying bribe Amount paid in cash (Rs) Amount paid in kind (Rs) Other Expenses repeated visits/ phone etc.(Rs.)

Any influence/ pressure mobilized (Rs.)

Any payment paid to middlemen-Yes-1, No-2, If yes in Rs.



TOTAL exp. Person taking bribe (by designation).

13 Did you get the works done by payment of bribe: Yes-1, No 2

14 When was the bribe demanded? During 1st visit-1, 2nd visit-2, More than 2 visits- 3.

15 (a) Are you satisfied by paying bribe? Yes-1, No-2

(b) Reason

Part-II: Perception On Levels of Corruption and Anti Corruption Efforts

16 Which type of Corruption is more harmful? Low level-1, High level-2, Both level-3, Don’t Know-4

17 Do you think low salary of govt. staff is a reason for corruption? Yes-1, No-2

18 Do you think petty corruption is desirable at times to get the work done without delay? Yes-1, No-2

19 Are you aware of any anti-corruption activity by Government? Yes-1, No-2

If yes, Name the departments taking effective action to check corruption with preference.

1.

2.

3.

20 What is your view on future of corruption? Shall Increase-1, Shall decrease-2, Remain at current level-3, Shall disappear-4

21 Are you satisfied by the action taken by the Vigilance Department, Yes-1, No.-2. 22 Reason for Yes or No.

23 Opinion for making Vigilance Department more effective.

Signature of the Respondent Date :

Date of Survey

Date of inspection

Name of the I.O. Signature of I.O with comments.

Name of the Investigator Signature of the investigator with date of submission.




CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY EXIT POLL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CLIENTS

(Dist./State/Selected Block HQ Offices)

District Office Location Office Code


1. Name 2. Father/ Husband’s Name 3. Address Rural-1

Urban-2 4. Age 5. Sex (Male-1,

Female-2) 6. Economic Status-

(APL-1, BPL-2)

7. Caste (SC-1, ST-2, OBC-3, Gen.-4)

8. Qualification (Illiterate-1, Primary-2, Middle-3, Secondary-4, Higher Secondary-5, Graduation-6, Post Graduation-7, Technical diploma-8, Technical degree-9

9. Profession (Cultivation-1, Business-2, Govt. Service-3, Private service-4, Retired person-5, Wage Labour-6, Other-7)

Case Experience 10. Purpose of visit to the office/ department 11. Number of visit: Ist-1, 2nd-2, 3rd-3, more than 3-4 12. Did you get the work done? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3 13. (a) Did you experience any corruption (bribe etc) to get the work

done? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

(b) If yes, directly or indirectly. 14. If Yes, indicate degree of corruption involved- High-1, Medium-2,

Low-3, No corruption-4.

15. Have you paid any bribe previously for other work in the office ? yes-1, No-2. 16. Tell the details of expenditure incurred

Item Present work Previous work, if any. Purpose for paying bribe Amount paid in cash (Rs) Amount paid in kind (Rs) Other Expenses repeated visits/ phone etc.(Rs.) Any influence/ pressure mobilized (Rs.) Any payment paid to middlemen-Yes-1, No-2, If yes in Rs.

TOTAL exp. Person taking bribe by designation.

17. Did you get the works done by payment of bribe: Yes-1, No 2 18. If No, state the reasons

(a)



(b) 19. When was the bribe demanded? During 1st visit-1, 2nd visit-2,

More than 2 visits- 3.

20. Do you think petty corruption is desirable at times to get the work done without delay? Yes-1, No-2

21. Do you think low salary of govt. staff is a reason for corruption? Yes-1, No-2

22. Which one is more harmful? Corruption- Low level-1, High level-2, Both level-3, Don’t Know-4

23. (a) Are you satisfied by paying bribe? Yes-1, No-2 (b) If yes, state reasons.

24. If No, Why you did not complain to higher officials

(a) (b)

25. Are you aware of the activities of state vigilance department in checking corruption? Yes-1, No,2

26. If Yes, Why you did not complain to vigilance department? (a) (b)

27. Which according to you is/are essential to check corruption? Rank1,2,3------- (a) Raising public awareness on Law, rules, procedure and rights (b) Summary trial and exemplary punishment to corrupt officials/ persons (c) Strict monitoring by higher officials (d) Strong and accountable political leadership grassroots onwards (e) Any other-1 (f) Any other-2

28. Who according to you is more guilty? Person giving-1, person taking-2 29. What is your view on future of corruption? Shall Increase-1, Shall

decrease-2, Remain at current level-3, Shall disappear-4

30. Give your suggestions to make state vigilance department more effective in fighting corruption

(a) (b) (c)




Date of Survey

Date of inspection







QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NODAL OFFICERS (Head of Office/Sr.Officer & subordinate official)

District Office Location Office

Code


1. Name 2. Designation

3. Age 4. Sex (Male-1, Female-2) 5. Qualification

6. Total Length of Service in years.

7. Period spent in this office

8. Are you aware about instance(s ) of corruption in your office? Yes-1, No-2.

9. If Yes, what is the degree of corruption - High-1, Medium-2, Low-3, No corruption-4.

10. If yes, field of corruption.

11. Which factor contributes more for corruption in your office - rank preferences 1,2,3…

(a) Lack of adequate staff strength

(b) Lack of clear guidelines and administrative procedures

(c) Political interference

(d) Interference by superior officers

(e) Culture of demanding and paying bribe

(f) Low salary

(g) Inadequate monitoring by senior officials

(h) Any other :

12. Do you think steps are taken within the department to check Corruption? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

If Yes, Please illustrate those steps

(a)

(b)

(c) 13. Do you think steps taken by the department to check Corruption

are adequate and effective? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3



If No, Please suggest remedial measures to check corruption (a)

(b)

(c)

14. Do you think it is possible to eliminate corruption from your office? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

15. If yes, how ; if no, why ?

16. Do you think vigilance department is effective in checking typical cases of corruption that you come across in office? Yes-1, No-2

17. If yes, give instances.

18. If No, Give reasons

(a)

(b)

(c)

19. What tips you would like to give to Vigilance Department to check corruption in your office/ department?

(a)

(b)

(c)

20. Share any typical corruption case from your service experience (a)

In this office :-

(b)

In other offices :-

21. Any other information you may like to share (a) (b)




Date of Survey

Date of inspection







QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEPARTMENTS OF SECRETARIAT

RESPONDENT PARTICULARS 1. Department :

2. Name of respondent :

3. Designation : 4. Age

5. Caste (S.C-1, ST-2, OBC-3, Gen.-4)

: 6. Sex (Male-1, Female-2)

7. Qualification : Awareness on Corruption 8. Are you aware about instance(s ) of corruption in Secretariat? Yes-1,

No-2.

9. If Yes, Name the departments indicating degree of corruption involved- High-1, Medium-2, and Low-3.

Name of department High Medium Low

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

10. Which level is involved in more corruption? Class I-1, Class II-2, Class III-3, Class IV-4, No response-5

11. Which factor contributes more for corruption- rank preferences 1,2,3…

(a) Lack of fixed time limit to dispose work

(b) Discretionary powers enjoyed by officials

(c) Lack of adequate staff strength

(d) Political interference



(e) Culture of demanding and paying bribe

(f) Low salary package

(g) Any other : 12. What is the price (bribe) for typical works/ favours done in the department?

Type Work Approximate amount

Who involved (by designation)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

13. Do you think steps are taken within the department to check Corruption? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3, If Yes, what steps?

(a) (b) (c)

14. Do you think steps taken are effective? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3 If No, Please suggest measures that you think can check corruption (a) (b) (c)

15. Do you think it is possible to eliminate corruption from your Department ? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

16. If yes, how ; if no, why ? 17. Please give tips to Vigilance Department to check corruption in your last dept.

(a) (b) (c)

18. Any other issue/ information you may like to share (a) (b) (c)




Date of Survey Date of inspection Name of the I.O Signature of I.O with comments.

Name of the Investigator Signature of the Investigator with date of submission.





QUESTIONNAIRE FOR REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS


1. Name

2. Designation

3. Age

4. Sex (Male-1, Female-2)

5. Caste (SC-1, ST-2, OBC-3, Gen.-4)

6. Qualification 7. Profession: (Retired Government official- 1 -, NGO functionary-2,

Media 3, Academic-4, Lawyer-5, Trade union leader-6, Other- 7)

8. Professional Experience in years Part I: Awareness on instances of Corruption 9. Are you aware about instance(s ) of corruption in government sector? Yes-1,

No-2.

10. Do you think following Govt. Departments are involved in corruption? If High-1, Medium-2, Low-3, No corruption-4, Do not know-5. Name of Department High Medium Low No Corruption Don’t know

i. Service Sector a Elementary education b School and Mass Education c Higher Education d Health Department e Police Department f Courts/Judicial Services g Public Sector Banks h Cooperatives

i State Road Transport Services

j Railways ii Utility Sector a Electricity Department b Water (P.H.D) c Municipality/NAC d Food and Civil Supply

iii. Revenue earning& licensing Sector a Sales/Commercial Taxes



b Land registration c Licensing/vehicles (RTO) d Excise Department e Tahasil/ RI Office f Industry (DIC)

iv. Works Departments a Public Works Department b Water Resources (Irrigation) c DRDA (Panchayatiraj) d Block (Panchayatiraj) e Rural Development (RD)

V. Other Sectors a Forest Department b Agriculture Department c NGOs d Business farms

11. Please cite three cases from your experience that illustrate patterns of corruption and collusive corruption involving more than one department/institution (recycling of rice, kerosene, land grabbing, NTFP trade, tax evasion, licensing, rebates, fixing examination centres, improper use of discretionary powers etc.)

a

b

c

12. What is the price (bribe) for typical works/ favours done in the department?

Department/Office

Type of Work Who involved Approximate Amount

a

b

c

d

e

f



g

h

i

j

13. In your view, what are the major causes of corruption in Government offices?

a

b

c 14. Please rank the major reasons of corrupt practices in Orissa starting with 1 for most

potent cause? a Illiteracy and ignorance among masses/beneficiaries b Lack of transparency in decision-making c Discretionary powers enjoyed by administration d Ineffective civil society action e Corrupt officials f Corrupt elected representatives g Ineffective media h Low Salary i Heavy workload/ poor staff strength j Any other- 15. Are you satisfied with the anti-corruption drive taken

by Vigilance Department of the Government? Fully Satisfied – 1, Partially Satisfied – 2 , Not Satisfied-3, No Response-4

16. If not satisfied, suggest steps necessary for improvement (a) (b) (c)

17. At present vigilance dept. focuses on illegal accumulation of private property, Bribe,Price rigging in essential commodities, Tax Evasion and Fraudulent dealings byofficials. Please suggest if additional subjects to be added in this list. (a) (b) (c) (d)



Part-II

(Additional Questionnaire for Officials retired during last three years)

18. Name of the Department last served

19. Do you think that officials in your department (last served) are involved in corrupt practices? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

20. If Yes, Which level you blame more for corruption? Tick the choice. a Top Level

b Bottom Level

c Both bottom and top level

21. Please mention the type of work that breeds corruption in your previous department indicating bribe taken for each kind of work.

Department/Office Type of work Who involved Approximate Amount

a

b

c

d

e 22. Do you think steps are taken within the department to check Corruption?

Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

If Yes, Please illustrate those steps (a) (b) (c)

23. Do you think steps taken by the department to check Corruption are adequate and effective? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

If No, Please suggest remedial measures to check corruption

(a)

(b)

(c) 24.

Do you think it is possible to eliminate corruption from your office? Yes-1, No-2, No Response-3

If No, Give reasons

(a)

(b)

(c)



25. Please give tips to Vigilance Department to check corruption in your last dept.

(a)

(b)

(c) 26. Any other issue/ information you may like to share

(a)

(b)

Signature of the Respondent

Date :

Date of Survey Date of inspection Name of the I.O Signature of I.O with comments.

Name of the Investigator Signature of the Investigator with date of submission.

REPORT - · PDF fileVIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ... that lower-level government officials can...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT - · PDF fileVIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ... that lower-level government officials can...