The Directorate General of Vigilance (DGoV) has issued a strong communication dated October 6, 2025, cautioning officers against making references to it in quasi-judicial matters, particularly when such references are made against junior officers without following the principles and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
The letter, viewed as a reminder to uphold judicial independence within the tax administration, emphasizes that quasi-judicial functions — including adjudication and appellate proceedings — must remain free from administrative interference. The DGoV reportedly “frowned upon” the practice of seniors citing its name or invoking vigilance threats to influence decisions in such matters.
The office has been receiving references from the (Pr.) Chief Commissioners/ (Pr.) Directors General seeking initiation of vigilance investigation in respect of adjudication orders passed by the officers.
It is observed that the references are being forwarded to the DGoV for initiation of vigilance investigation in matters of a quasi-judicial nature, without conducting a thorough and preliminary examination of the merit, appropriateness, and existence of a vigilance angle. Such a preliminary assessment is imperative to establish whether the circumstances warrant vigilance intervention, particularly in light of the guidelines laid down by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The attention was invited to CVC’s Master Circular No. 01/MC/2025, dated 23.05.2025 (copy enclosed) on Definition of Vigilance Angle. Para 1 to 14 of the said CVC’s Circular provides the detailed guidelines for examining Vigilance Angle in respect of quasi-judicial functions being performed by officials.
“The commission desires that the CVOs and the authorities concerned in the respective organizations while considering the lapses of officials exercising quasi-judicial powers, should keep in mind the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in its decisions in case ofK.K.Dhawan’s Vs. Uol case (1993 AIR 1478) &R.R.Parekh Vs. Gujarat High Court Case (Civil Appeal Nos. 6116-6117 of 2016 [AIR 2016 SC 3356] as brought out in Paras 10 and 12 above, and arrive at a decision accordingly including in those cases, where CVC is to be approached for advice,” the circular read.
The DGoV requested that the (Pr.) Chief Commissioners and (Pr.) Directors General ensure that, before making any reference for a vigilance investigation in matters related to adjudication, each case is thoroughly and objectively scrutinized. This scrutiny should assess whether the case aligns with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the K.K. Dhawan and R.R.Parekh judgment, as well as the relevant guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
Notification Details
Date: 06 October, 2025
Read More: SC Disposes GST Dept’s Appeal Against Calcutta HC Order Citing Monetary Limit on Penalty
