Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By her aforementioned acts, the said Ms. Anju Ranjan has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and has acted contrary to the established rules and practices thereby violating Rule 3(1)(iii) & (xviii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

5. Applicant avers that the genesis of Article-I of the charge lies in the pseudonymous email dated 22.09.2020 sent from one Flavia Barreto to the vigilance unit of the Ministry alleging pocketing of school fee by Anju Ranjan. Articles-II to VI contain allegation of making payment to venders in cash instead of by cheques (OA No.63/2024) and depositing the Govt. money drawn in her personal account connected to celebration of certain events of national importance in Edinburgh. These Articles are based on anonymous complaints in which audit queries with regard to payments in cash were highlighted beyond proportion, despite the queries having been dropped by Audit. It is claimed that these complaints were made intentionally by some disgruntled person to malign the applicant's unblemished service career. It is asserted that there are existing instructions regarding dealing with anonymous/pseudonymous complaints, contained in DOPT OM No. 104/76/2011/ AVD-I dated 18.10.2013 and OM No. 104/76/2011/AVD-I dated 18.06.2014 which categorically state that no action would be taken on anonymous / pseudonymous complaints, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints should be simply filed.

6. Applicant also avers that in terms of the CVC's Instructions dated 25.11.2014 (Circular No. 07/11/2014), reiterated by CVC dated 24.09.2020 that no action would be taken on anonymous /pseudonymous complaints by Ministries/ Departments and such complaints should be filed, asking all CVOs / Administrative Authorities to ensure strict compliance to the above instructions and that non-

(OA No.63/2024) compliance/violation of these guidelines by the concerned authorities would be viewed seriously, in disregard to above instructions, the JS (CNV&I) & CVO took cognizance of anonymous and pseudonymous complaints; got them investigated and on the basis of such investigation and the materials and evidence gathered during that investigation, initiated the instant disciplinary proceeding. The CVC tendered advice for initiation of above proceedings vide OM dated 06.09.2022, which reveals that the Commission in agreement with Ministry's recommendations, had advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings against applicant. However, no reason is adduced on the face of said advice. Such advice is, therefore, without basis and the material on consideration of which the said advice was issued, was not disclosed by the Ministry.

5) (3.10.5) Similarly, no action is to be taken by the Ministries / Departments/ Organisations in the case of complaints which are treated as pseudonymous. A complaint that does not bear the full particulars of the complainant or is unsigned or is not subsequently acknowledged by a complainant as having been made is a pseudonymous complaint. Pseudonymous complaints will be referred to the complainant for confirmation / genuineness verification and if no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent.

After waiting for 15 days of sending the reminder, if still no response is received, the said complaint may be (OA No.63/2024) filed as pseudonymous by the concerned Ministry / Department. The relevant Circulars on the subject are CVCs Circular No. 07/11/2014 dated 25.11.2014, DoPT OM No.104/76/2011-AVD.I dated 18.10.2013 and Circular No.03/03/16 dated 07.03.2016." It is clear from the above that pseudonymous complaints will be referred to complainant for confirmation/genuineness verification and if no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days of sending the reminder, if still no response is received, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the concerned Ministry / Department. As mentioned earlier, the aforesaid guidelines, instructions of CVC as contained in the Vigilance Manual were scrupulously followed in the instant case inasmuch as a confirmation was sought from the complainant and the complainant was also asked to provide evidence, if any, in support of the allegation, vide email dated 27.07.2020 and the complainant on 30th July, 2020 confirmed to have sent and also attached certain evidence and proof, which was already said to have sent in the earlier communication. Therefore, the complaint in question was treated as a genuine complaint and action as per rule was accordingly initiated. Accordingly, the High Commission set up a Committee to submit preliminary inquiry report into the (OA No.63/2024) allegation. It was only during their visit that the complainant disowned the mail and Id. Thus, it is evident that the preliminary enquiry was initiated based on a complaint, the veracity of which had been ascertained by the respondents and hence the basic premise of the learned counsel for the applicant that charge sheet was based on pseudonymous complaints does not stand to scrutiny.