Editorial: GMs, CAOs & DRMs Who Shield Corruption Under GCC Clause 18 Cannot Escape CBI Scrutiny
The silence is no longer neutral—it is complicit
Across Indian Railways, repeated failures by General Managers, along with concerned CAOs and DRMs, to act against #Corruption as mandated under General Conditions of Contracts (#GCC) Clause-18 have exposed a dangerous pattern: institutional inaction in the face of documented wrongdoing.
Also Read: “Editorial: A Two-Tier System in Indian Railways”
Clause-18 exists for a clear purpose—to deter bribery, punish corrupt practices, and protect the integrity of public procurement. When those entrusted with its enforcement deliberately avoid action, the clause becomes a weapon of convenience—used selectively against the weaker, while the powerful remain untouched. This is not governance; it is abdication.
Such sustained non-action raises unavoidable questions:
- Why are complaints and records ignored despite clear contractual authority?
- Who benefits when enforcement is stalled or buried?
- At what point does “delay” become dereliction?
In a system funded by public money, willful inaction is not a procedural lapse—it is enabling corruption. Under Indian law, omission by public servants, when it facilitates illegality, attracts accountability. The doctrine is settled: silence that protects wrongdoing is itself wrongdoing.
It is therefore inevitable that officers who consistently escape decision-making under Clause 18—despite prima facie material—cannot remain beyond scrutiny. Independent oversight by agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation becomes not just appropriate, but necessary, to restore credibility and public trust.
The choice before the Railway leadership is stark:
- Enforce Clause 18 uniformly and transparently, regardless of rank; or
- Face independent investigation for systemic failure and possible complicity.
Institutions survive on integrity, not immunity. If Clause 18 is to mean anything at all, accountability must begin at the top.