Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PSEUDONYM in Air Cmde Mrigendra, Vsm vs The Union Of India & 8 Ors on 17 September, 2013Matching Fragments
WP(C) 5606/2012 (Emphasis is added)
46. In the light of our decision that we must decide the writ petition on merit, we, now, turn to the Office Memorandum, dated 22-11-1992, issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, which is reproduced under:
"a. 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.
b. While as a policy, anonymous/pseudonymous complaints should be ignored and only be filed [....] wherever the Head of the Department/Chief Executive, on a prima facie examination of such complaints, takes a decision, to pursue further action in this regard as to the verification of the facts, a copy of all such complaints, petitions, as far as possible, shall first be made available to the officer concerned for his comments and only thereafter, further action should be taken."
(Emphasis is supplied)
47. From a bare reading of the office memorandum, dated 22-11- 1992, it becomes clear that according to the policy decision and guidelines issued by the Government of India, no action is, generally, warranted on an anonymous complaint against Government servant or WP(C) 5606/2012 pseudonymous complaint against Government servants and such a complaint shall, ordinarily, be filed. However, when the Head of the Department/Chief Executive, on a prima facie examination of such a complaint, decides to pursue the complaint as regards the verification of the acts stated therein, a copy of such a complaint, as far as possible, shall, first, be made available to the officer concerned for his comments and only thereafter, further action should be taken.
"...In terms of an Office memorandum M of D I D.No.C- 13029/I/VIG-III/91, dated 22-11-1992 (Annexure-G) made applicable to the defense personnel as well, whenever the Head of Department/Chief Executive, on a prima facie examination of an anonymous/pseudonymous complaint, takes a decision, to pursue further action as to the verification of facts, a copy of such complaint, as far as possible, is required to be first made available to the officer concerned for his comments and only thereafter action, if any, is to be taken. In the present case, no copy of any complaint was furnished to the petitioner in order to invite his comments, if any, before taking decision for convening the Court of Inquiry. Omission on the part of the respondents to act in compliance with the said requirement of the office memorandum/(Annexure-G), according to the petitioner renders the order convening the Court of Inquiry vitiated and bad in law. There is no contest on behalf of the respondents in so far as applicability of the aforesaid instructions in connection with taking of cognizance of anonymous/pseudonymous complaints to defense personnel is concerned. In the present case, no copy of complaint(s) pertaining to the alleged charges covered under para 3(b) to (f) is claimed to have had been supplied to the petitioner inviting his comments before making the order convening the Court of Inquiry to investigate into allegations directed against the petitioner. The admitted position as reflected from the counter affidavit of the respondents is that a copy of complaint containing allegations covered under Para 3(b) of the counter affidavit was forwarded to the authority WP(C) 5606/2012 concerned along with convening order of the Court of Inquiry and the petitioner was to be apprised of the same only at the time when the Court of Inquiry was to assemble. The stand so taken by the respondents is obviously not in conformity with the instructions contained in the aforesaid office memorandum (Annexure-G). The reason for supplying a copy of anonymous/pseudonymous complaints and affording an opportunity to the official concerned to offer his comments is to enable the authority concerned to apply its mind to the whole matter before exercising its discretion relating to convening of the Court of Inquiry to investigate into the allegations against him. Since the convening authority in the instant case appears to have passed the impugned order convening a Court of Inquiry without furnishing the copy of the complaint(s) in question and affording the petitioner an opportunity of offering his comments, if any, ignoring the relevant instructions on the subject, there was improper exercise of power on the part of the convening authority in making the impugned order convening the Court of Inquiry to investigate into the allegations as detailed in para 3(b) to (f) of the counter affidavit and consequently the same is, liable to be set aside to that extent."