A sweeping internal directive from the Haryana Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has instructed officers to draw up district-wise lists of government officials described as “notorious and openly defiant”, signalling a tougher enforcement phase against entrenched graft within the state administration.The order, issued soon after Pankaj Nain took charge as Director General of the bureau, asks vigilance units to identify officials who allegedly refuse to discharge routine duties without illegal gratification and whose “corrupt image” is said to be widely known among the public and within departments. The move marks one of the strongest internal communications from the anti-corruption watchdog in recent years, with a clear emphasis on accountability at the district level.
According to the directive circulated to senior officers, the proposed lists are not intended as informal intelligence notes but as working documents to guide surveillance, verification, and prioritisation of cases. Officers have been told to rely on substantiated inputs, including repeated complaints, field assessments, and prior vigilance records, rather than hearsay. The communication underlines that indiscriminate naming would weaken prosecutions and expose the bureau to legal challenges, placing the onus on district vigilance units to ensure accuracy and fairness.
The instructions also highlight a shift in strategy from reactive investigations to proactive identification of patterns of misconduct. Officials flagged as “openly defiant” are described as those who allegedly delay files, deny statutory services, or misuse procedural discretion unless bribes are paid. The bureau has indicated that such conduct, even in the absence of a trap case, can form the basis for discreet verification and eventual action under the Prevention of Corruption Act and service rules.
Within the Haryana administration, the directive has drawn attention for its blunt language and its potential implications for seniority-protected officials. Vigilance officers have been asked to map repeat allegations against individuals across departments such as revenue, urban local bodies, police stations, transport offices, and development authorities, where public interface is high and discretionary power is frequently exercised. The emphasis on district-wise compilation suggests that responsibility for identifying problem officials will rest squarely with local vigilance teams rather than the headquarters alone.
Officials familiar with the bureau’s internal functioning say the approach reflects lessons from earlier anti-corruption drives, where isolated trap cases failed to dismantle networks of rent-seeking. By focusing on officials with a “known corrupt image”, the bureau appears to be aiming at deterrence through sustained scrutiny rather than sporadic arrests. At the same time, the directive cautions officers against personal bias or vendetta-driven reporting, warning that any false or exaggerated entry would invite disciplinary action against the reporting officer.
The order comes amid broader administrative pressure on state agencies to improve service delivery timelines and reduce discretionary delays. Haryana has expanded online portals for land records, municipal services, and transport-related permissions, but complaints of offline bottlenecks and unofficial payments persist. Senior bureaucrats note that digitalisation alone has not eliminated corruption at the cutting edge, particularly where physical inspections or clearances remain mandatory.
Legal experts point out that preparing such lists is not unprecedented but carries risks if not handled carefully. Vigilance agencies in several states have maintained internal “bad character” or “habitual offender” registers, primarily for intelligence purposes. Courts have generally permitted such internal documentation provided it does not result in punitive action without due process. Any subsequent arrest, suspension, or prosecution must still be based on evidence gathered in accordance with law.