Vigilance Manual (Updated 2021) — Preliminary Enquiry Under the Vigilance Manual

What a Preliminary Enquiry Can and Cannot Do

Start with what it is not. A Preliminary Enquiry (PE) is not a criminal investigation in the legal sense — it is a fact-finding exercise, collecting documents, obtaining and verifying witness statements, and establishing what actually happened, so someone can decide what to do next. A criminal investigation, by contrast, is a specific legal process carried out by the CBI or a police officer under statutory powers — and an Enquiry Officer running a departmental PE simply does not have those powers. They cannot arrest anyone, they cannot search premises, and they cannot seize property in the way a police investigating officer legally can. This single distinction explains why certain categories of allegations have to go outside the department entirely: if the facts genuinely can't be established without exercising a power only the police possess, a departmental PE is the wrong tool from the outset.

Four Doors, and Which One a Complaint Should Go Through

The Manual sorts complaints into four lanes:

• CBI or the Anti-Corruption Branch of a Union Territory handles allegations of offences the Delhi Special Police Establishment is authorised to investigate — bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of records — along with possession of disproportionate assets, matters that genuinely cannot be verified without questioning non-official persons or examining non-Government records, and other complicated matters that need real police investigative capability.
• Local police takes over where the allegations look, on the face of it, like a criminal offence, but not one the DSPE is authorised to investigate.
• The departmental vigilance machinery handles allegations of misconduct that is not itself a criminal offence, or departmental irregularity and negligence, where the facts can genuinely be established from within the Department or Office.
• Where a single complaint has both criminal and departmental elements tangled together, the split is worked out in consultation with the CBI — and if the two genuinely can't be separated without artificially slicing up one connected set of facts, the cleaner course is to hand the whole thing to the CBI rather than force a split that won't hold up.

A short example brings this to life. Say a complaint alleges that a Section Officer sanctioned an inflated contractor bill and separately turned up late to office for three months without explanation. The billing allegation, if it genuinely involves kickbacks, belongs with the CBI or departmental vigilance depending on how the facts unfold; the attendance issue is not a vigilance matter at all — it is ordinary administrative action, and bundling it into the same PE dilutes focus on the part of the complaint that actually matters.

The Rule Against Running Two Investigations on the Same Facts — and Its Real Limits

Once CBI has taken up a case, the Manual is firm that the department should not run a parallel investigation into the same allegations, and further departmental action generally waits for CBI's report. But this rule is narrower than it's often applied in practice. It does not require the department to freeze everything connected to the complaint — genuinely non-criminal misconduct within the same matter can still be investigated departmentally to reach a quicker resolution, as long as CBI is kept informed of what is being separately examined. And where departmental proceedings were already validly initiated, based on the department's own investigation, before CBI got involved, those proceedings can continue; CBI does not need to duplicate that ground unless it suspects criminal misconduct requiring its own investigation.

This is a point the Commission has had to correct organisations on repeatedly: a bank or PSU sometimes treats an ongoing CBI investigation into a loan fraud as a reason to also freeze the recovery of money from the defaulting borrower, or to shelve departmental action on a non-criminal element of the same complaint. The Manual is explicit that this is the wrong instinct — recovery action in particular should not wait for CBI to conclude its investigation. Waiting has a real cost: money that could have been recovered quickly sits uncollected for years while a criminal case works through its own, often much slower, timeline.

The ₹25 Lakh Line for CPSEs, and Which CBI Wing Picks It Up

For Central Public Sector Enterprises specifically, the Commission's working rule is that cases involving transactions of ₹25 lakh or more, or carrying national or international ramifications regardless of value, should ordinarily go to the CBI; smaller matters ordinarily go to local police instead. Within CBI, the split is itself structured: criminal matters implicating a CPSE official go to the Anti-Corruption Branch, with the CMD's approval; where no CPSE official is prima facie implicated, the matter instead goes to CBI's Economic Offences Wing. Public Sector Banks work off a different, more granular monetary table entirely, laid down in Paragraphs 8.13.1 to 8.13.3 of Chapter VIII of the Manual — we walk through that table, including the exact figures separating State CID referrals from CBI Banking Security and Fraud Cell referrals, in our companion article on Vigilance in Public Sector Banks and Insurance Companies.

One Person's Call, Not a Committee's

Deciding to refer a matter to CBI is not slowed down by layers of internal clearance. Every Chief Vigilance Officer has full discretion to make that referral, subject only to the administrative approval of the organisation's Chief Executive. In practice this matters more than it sounds: evidence in a fraud or bribery matter can disappear fast, and a CVO who has to wait for an elaborate internal sign-off chain before referring a live matter to CBI risks losing exactly the evidence the referral was meant to preserve. The design deliberately keeps this step fast.

The Quiet Coordination That Happens Even Without an Active Case

Referral isn't the only touchpoint between a CVO and the CBI. CVOs of CPSEs and PSBs are required to interact and exchange information with the CBI on a quarterly basis regardless of whether any specific case is pending, and to report to the Commission through their Quarterly Performance Reports on what has been noticed in their organisation and where action stands. It's unglamorous, routine reporting, but it's precisely the kind of structured, periodic check that catches a matter which might otherwise sit unnoticed in the gap between an organisation's own vigilance machinery and CBI's separate jurisdiction.

The Three-Month Clock

Where a matter has been referred for investigation, the working expectation is that it should be completed within three months from the date the reference was received. This is not treated as a soft target: if a CVO cannot realistically finish within that window, the Manual expects them to proactively seek an extension of time, stating the specific reason for the delay, rather than simply let the deadline pass unremarked. The same three-month benchmark recurs across several related timelines in the Manual — from the period within which a CVO should ordinarily refer a qualifying matter to the Commission, to the period within which certain Commission communications are expected to be actioned — which makes it a useful default to keep in mind even where a specific paragraph doesn't spell out an exact number for the situation at hand.

What Happens Once the Enquiry Is Actually Done

A Preliminary Enquiry is not an end in itself — it exists to produce one of a small set of outcomes. If the enquiry substantiates the allegations, the report goes to the Disciplinary Authority with a recommendation on whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings, refer the matter for prosecution, or both, depending on whether the substantiated facts disclose a criminal offence, a departmental lapse, or (as is common) both at once. If the enquiry does not substantiate the allegations, or finds them exaggerated or based on a misunderstanding, the matter is closed and filed, and that closure is itself recorded — not left as an open question that resurfaces years later without a clear resolution on record. Where the enquiry throws up findings the original complaint didn't even allege, the vigilance machinery does not simply ignore them because they fall outside the original scope; a fresh look at those findings, on their own facts, is warranted. This is why a Preliminary Enquiry report, however preliminary its name suggests, is treated as a serious, standalone document in its own right, not a rough draft to be casually superseded once the “real” process begins.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)