Upload
leminh
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 2 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 3 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 4 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 5 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 6 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 7 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 8 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 9 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 10 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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:
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 11 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 12 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
♦ 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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 13 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 14 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 15 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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-
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 16 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 17 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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,
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 18 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 19 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
% 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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 20 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
TRADERS
% of Respondents reporting High
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.
% of Respondents reporting Medium
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 21 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
NODAL OFFICERS
% of Respondents reporting High
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.
% of Respondents reporting Medium
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 22 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
% 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
% of Respondents reporting High
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.
% of Respondents reporting Medium
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 23 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 24 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Perceived Degree of Corruption in Percentage Office/ Department High Medium Low No
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 25 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Perceived Degree of Corruption in Percentage Office/ Department High Medium Low No
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 26 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 27 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 28 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 29 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 30 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 31 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 32 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 33 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 34 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 35 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 36 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 37 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 38 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 39 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 40 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 41 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 42 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 43 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 44 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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%).
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 45 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 46 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 47 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
concerned Officer/Clerk. Bribe was demanded from 32.1% of the respondent in
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
Mode of payment Timing of demand for bribe Direct Indirect 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit
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%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 48 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 49 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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,
rest 66.5% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities
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 for satisfaction after paying bribe
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 50 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption Yes No High Medium Low
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.
Departmental measures to check corruption
Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate Yes No No
ResponseYes No No
Response Block 17% 6% 77% 55% 9% 36%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 51 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
17% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address
corruption. 6% say no whereas 77% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
55% say measures taken are effective, 9 % say those are not adequate and 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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 52 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
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 %
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 53 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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 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
Purpose High Medium Low
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 54 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Retirement Benefits followed by Bill Payment.
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 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
Results of giving Bribes
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 for not getting any result after bribe payment
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,
rest 67.9% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities
include no faith on outcome (22.3%), fear of work getting delayed (17.9%), no
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 55 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
response on any complaint (17.0%), fear of retaliation by aggrieved staff (7.1%)
and lengthy procedure (3.6%).
Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept.
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 for satisfaction after paying bribe
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
Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption Yes No High Medium Low
Treasury 18% 82% 28% 36% 36%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 56 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)
Lack of adequate staff strength
Low salary of employees
Culture of demanding and paying bribe
Interference by superior officials
Political interference
Lack of clear guidelines & protocols
Departmental measures to check corruption
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
corruption. 36% say no whereas 36% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 57 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
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 %
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
concerned Officer/Clerk. Bribe was demanded from 35.7% of the respondent in
their first visit to the office whereas 39.9% in second visits.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 58 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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 % 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
Purpose High Medium Low No % No % No %
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 59 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Driving License followed by Vehicle Registration.
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 %
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%).
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 60 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept.
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
The major reason for satisfaction is work done (45.1%) followed by
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%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 61 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)
Lack of adequate staff strength
Political interference
Culture of demanding and paying bribe
Low salary of employees
Lack of clear guidelines & protocols
Interference by superior officials
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
Departmental measures to check corruption
Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate
Yes No No Response
Yes No No Response
Block 13% 8% 79% 44% 28% 28% 13% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address
corruption. 8% say no whereas 79% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
44% say measures taken are effective, 28 % say those are not adequate and 28%
do not respond. 52% of respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 62 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
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 %
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 63 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
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 %
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
Rating of Corruption
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
Purpose High Medium Low No % No % No %
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 64 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
settlement of land disputes followed by compensation for land.
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 % 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 for not getting any result after bribe payment
Reasons No. %
Under process 2 33.3
More bribe demanded 3 50.0
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%).
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 65 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept.
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
Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption
Yes No High Medium Low
Tahsil 14% 86% 24% 38% 38%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 66 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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)
Lack of adequate staff strength
Interference by superior officials
Political interference
Culture of demanding and paying bribe
Low salary of employees
Lack of clear guidelines & protocols
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.
Departmental measures to check corruption
Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate
Yes No No Response
Yes No No Response
Block 7% 2% 91% 25% 50% 25% 7% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address
corruption. 2% say no whereas 91% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
25% say measures taken are effective, 50 % say those are not adequate and 25%
do not respond. 51% of respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 67 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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 interaction
Purpose of visit
Visitors Number of visits No of visitors
got work done 1st 2nd More than 2
No % No % No % No % No %
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 68 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
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 %
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
Rating of Corruption
Medium34%
Low15%
High51%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 69 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Purpose High Medium Low
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
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 %
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 70 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
REASONS FOR NOT GETTING ANY RESULT
Reasons No. %
Under process 7 26.9
More bribe demanded 6 23.1
Office workload 5 19.2
Person transferred 1 3.8
Delay by middlemen 3 11.5
Others 4 15.4
Citizen perception on payment of bribe
31.4% of the persons who paid bribe are satisfied with the result,
rest 68.6% are dissatisfied. The reasons for not complaining to higher authorities
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%).
Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept.
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 71 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Reasons for satisfaction after paying bribe
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
Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption
Yes No High Medium Low
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)
Lack of adequate staff strength
Political interference
Culture of demanding and paying bribe
Low salary of employees
Interference by superior officials
Lack of clear guidelines & protocols
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 72 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate Yes No No
ResponseYes No No
Response Block 13% 5% 82% 63% 25% 12%
13% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address
corruption. 5% say no whereas 82% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
63% say measures taken are effective, 25% say those are not adequate and 12%
do not respond. 44% of respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 73 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Purpose of visit Visitors
Number of visits No of visitors got work done1st 2nd More than 2
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 74 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
EXPERIENCES WITH URBAN BODIES
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 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%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 75 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
ITEM WISE RATINGS OF BRIBES PAID
Purpose High Medium Low
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.
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 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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 76 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Results of giving Bribes
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 for not getting any result after bribe payment
Reasons No. %
Under process 21 47.7
More bribe demanded 14 31.8
Work load on the concerned Staff 7 15.9
Delay by middlemen 2 4.5
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%).
Reasons for not informing about corruption to higher official or Vigilance Dept.
14.3
9.5 8.7
5.64.0 4.0
02468
10121416
Ignorance LengthyProcedure
Fear of Delay No faith inoutcome
Retaliation Expensive
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 77 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Reasons for satisfaction after paying bribe
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
The major reason for satisfaction is work done (35.6%) followed by
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
Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption
Yes No High Medium Low
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.
Causes of Corruption (In order of added weightage)
Political interference
Low salary of employees
Lack of clear guidelines & protocols
Lack of adequate staff strength
Culture of demanding and paying bribe
Interference by superior officials
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 78 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Office Measures Taken Measures taken are adequate
Yes No No Response
Yes No No Response
Block 12% 9% 79% 63% 12% 25% 12% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address
corruption. 9% say no whereas 79% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
63% say measures taken are effective, 12% say those are not adequate and 25%
do not respond. 51% of respondents have said corruption can be eliminated from
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 79 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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 INTERACTION
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 80 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
SERVICES FOR WHICH BRIBES ARE PAID
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 % 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.
Rating of Corruption
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 81 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
ITEM WISE RATINGS OF BRIBES PAID
Purpose High Medium Low No % No % No %
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.
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 %
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
Results of giving Bribes
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 82 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
REASONS FOR NOT GETTING ANY RESULT Reasons No. %
More bribe demanded 2 40.0
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%).
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 83 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY NODAL OFFICERS IN SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE Corruption Experience
Office Corruption takes place Perceived Degree of Corruption
Yes No High Medium Low
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
Low salary of employees
Lack of clear guidelines & protocols
Culture of demanding and paying bribe
Interference by superior officials
Political interference
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
Block 7% 3% 90% 50% 50% 0% 7% of the respondents say measures have been taken to address
corruption. 3% say no whereas 90% have not given any answer. Similarly, while
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 84 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 85 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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%
Block Tahsil ULB RTOSub
Registrar
Police Treasury
Land Acquisition
13%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 86 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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%
Block Tahsil ULB RTOSub
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 87 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 88 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 89 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 90 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 91 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 92 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 93 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 94 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 95 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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%
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 96 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
SECTOR-WISE RANKING OF DEPARTMENTS AS PER PERCEIVED DEGREE OF CORRUPTION BY THE SECRETARIAT 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
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 97 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 98 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 99 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 100 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
♪ 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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 101 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 102 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Sector-wise ranking of departments as per perceived degree of corruption by the Reference Group Members
SERVICE SECTOR
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
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
Number of respondents as per views expressed
High Weightage Value Medium Weightage
Value Low Weightage Value
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 103 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
WORKS/ CONTRACTS SECTOR
Works/ Contracts
Sector No of
response
Number of respondents as per views expressed
High Weightage Value Medium Weightage
Value Low Weightage Value
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
Number of respondents as per views expressed
High Weightage Value Medium Weightage
Value Low Weightage Value
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:
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 104 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 105 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 106 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 107 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 108 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Background Occupational Background
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
Background Occupational Background
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 109 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Males Females ST/SC Others APL BPL Service Business Others
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
Gender Social Background
Economic Background
Occupational 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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 110 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Rural Citizens and Trader’s views on reasons for dissatisfaction with the work of vigilance department
Reason for dissatisfaction
No of respondents
Gender Social Background
Economic Background
Occupational Background
Males Females ST/SC Others APL BPL Service Business Others
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 111 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 112 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 113 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Rural Citizens and Trader’s Suggestions for strengthening Vigilance Dept. Suggestions for strengthening Vigilance Dept
No of respondents
Gender Social Background
Economic Background
Occupational Background
Males Females ST/SC Others APL BPL Service Business Others
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 114 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 115 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 116 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 117 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 118 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 119 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 120 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 121 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 122 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
Female-4 Male-25 Total-29
Gender Profile
6%
94% 100%
0%
50%
100%
150%
Value
Perc
enta
ge
Female-5 Male-85 Total-90
Rank Profile
41% 59%100%
0%
50%
100%
150%
Value
Perc
enta
ge
SO & below -37 US & above-53 Total-90
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 123 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 124 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 125 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Questionnaire No.2 DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE: ORISSA, CUTTACK
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY EXIT POLL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CLIENTS
(Dist./State/Selected Block HQ Offices)
District Office Location Office Code
RESPONDENT PARTICULARS
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)
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 126 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
(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)
Signature of the Respondent Date :
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 127 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 128 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Questionnaire No.3 DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE: ORISSA, CUTTACK
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NODAL OFFICERS (Head of Office/Sr.Officer & subordinate official)
District Office Location Office
Code
RESPONDENT PARTICULARS
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 129 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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)
Signature of the Respondent Date :
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 130 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 131 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Questionnaire No.4 DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE: ORISSA, CUTTACK
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 132 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
(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)
Signature of the Respondent Date :
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 133 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 134 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
Questionnaire No.5 DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE: ORISSA, CUTTACK
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS
RESPONDENT PARTICULARS
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 135 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 136 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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)
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 137 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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)
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, ORISSA - - 138 -
CORRUPTION PERCEPTION STUDY,ORISSA- 2006
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.