Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The senior counsel who appears for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Ext.P9 office memorandum of the Government of India dated 29-9-1992 which stipulates how anonymous/pseudonymous complaints are to be dealt with. Paragraph 2(a) of Ext.P9 lays down as follows:-

"Many anonymous/pseudonymous complaints are false and malicious and very often, such complaints are not a reliable source of information and enquiries into such complaints do have an adverse effect on the morale of the services. The Government of India are, therefore, of the view, that generally, no action is warranted on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints against Government Servants and they are to be filed."

Ext.P6 dated 29-6-1999 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission also directs that no action should be taken on anonymous and pseudonymous complaints and that they should be ignored and only filed. Ext.P6 further cautions the authorities in the following words:-

"However, there is a provision available in this order that in case such complaints contain verifiable details, they may be enquired into in accordance with existing instructions. It is, however, seen that the exception provided in this order has become a convenient loophole for blackmailing. The public servants who receive the anonymous/pseudonymous complaints, generally, follow the path of least resistance and order inquiries on these complaints. A peculiar feature of these complaints is that these are resorted to especially when a public servant's promotion is due or when an executive is likely to be called by the Public Enterprises Selection Board for interview for a post of Director/CMD etc. If nothing else, the anonymous/pseudonymous petition achieves the objective of delaying the promotion if not denying the promotion. These complaints demoralise many honest public servants."

Ext.P7 also contains a similar caution issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. It has been reiterated that under no circumstances should any investigation be commenced or action initiated on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. The Central Vigilance Commission has issued a further clarification as per Ext.P8 dated 11-10-2002 in the following words:-

"However, if any department/organisation proposes to look into any verifiable facts alleged in such complaints, it may refer the matter to the Commission seeking its concurrence through the CVO or the head of the organisation, irrespective of the level of employees involved therein."

"However, if any department/organisation proposes to look into any verifiable facts alleged in such complaints, it may refer the matter to the Commission seeking its concurrence through the CVO or the head of the organisation, irrespective of the level of employees involved therein."

Paragraph 3.8.4 deals with an entirely different situation where the administrative authority has ordered the conduct of an investigation into a pseudonymous complaint thinking that the same was a genuine, signed complaint. In such cases, if the investigation finds prima facie substance in the allegations, then the Vigilance Commission should be consulted as to the further course of action to be taken. However, this provision applies only to pseudonymous complaints.