Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. He submitted that the Postal Department returned all the registered post (R.P.A.D.) letters sent by the 2nd Respondent with an endorsement "No such person" on each cover. He also pointed out that one of the pseudonymous letters contained the name of a purported writer, one "Mrs. Hafeeza Begum", who claimed to be an "advocate". He submitted that the return of these letters has clearly and conclusively prove that the said letters are absolutely pseudonymous.

37. Learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent further submitted that when the Petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court for so many years, she has not even bothered to find out the existence and the whereabouts of the purported advocate "Mrs. Hafeeza Begum". "Mrs.Hafeeza Begum". The purported writer of the pseudonymous letter dated 6.10.2009 has not yet come forward, either before the authorities of the Trust or this Court, for redressal of any grievance. According to him, it was incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to approach this Court, with clean hands, by bringing the so-called "Mrs. Hafeeza Begum" before this Court. Instead, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court, on the basis of those fictitious anonymous and pseudonymous letters. According to the third respondent, the petitioner's single-point agenda is to become the Secretary of the Trust and take control of the Trust.

78. Though the Central Vigilance Commission's instructions are issued to various Ministries of the Central Government or Corporations established, under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, it is worthwhile to consider the same, for the reason that the instructions are to the effect as to how the Ministry, who is empowered to exercise superintendence over the Vigilance Administration of Various Ministries etc., to deal with anonymous and pseudonymous petitions. Few passages from the instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, dated 29.06.1999 would be worth consideration for the limited purpose of this case, as to how the Government of India deals with anonymous/pseudonymous petitions/complaints. The instructions may be only with reference to the Vigilance Administration. But in the instant case, it is to be noted that copies of the anonymous and pseudonymous complaints have been stated to have been sent to the President, State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, the Secretary. AUT, Chennai, The instructions are, "2. One of the facts of life in today's administration is the widespread use of anonymous and pseudonymous., petitions by disgruntled elements to blackmail honest officials. Under the existing orders, issued by Department of Personnel & Training letter No.321/4/91-AVD.III dt.29.9.92, no action should be taken on anonymous and pseudonymous complaints and should be ignored and only filed. 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.

XI) The Chairman also brought to the notice of the Committee, the instructions issued by the Central Vigilance Commission of Government of India, vide its orders bearing 3(v) 99/2 dated 29.6.1999. It is significant to note that even the Central Vigilance Commission of the Government of India has issued strict instructions that no action is to be taken on anonymous and pseudonymous letters and they are to be merely filed. (Copy attached hereto as Annexure 16). The Commission has observed that one of the facts of life in today's administration is the widespread use of anonymous and pseudonymous petitions by disgruntled elements to blackmail honest officials. 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. Therefore the Commission has ordered that no action should at all be taken on any anonymous, or pseudonymous complaints. They must just be filed.

102. As righty contended by the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, if any one of the purported complainant was aggrieved over the conduct of the respondents 3 and 4, he/she should have come forward to present the complaint and made any statement to the Chairman or even to the petitioner. If credibility has to be given to such anonymous and pseudonymous complaints, nobody can function independently. The image of any male person in a work place can be simply tarnished by sending any anonymous or pseudonymous complaint followed by a demand to appoint a committee to enquire into the same. Enquiry by a committee cannot be granted for mere asking. It does not mean that whenever a petition is sent, anonymous or pseudonymous, immediately a committee should be constituted and that it should swing into action, by calling upon the person accused of any harassment, without even making any preliminary enquiry or for the matter that even for holding a preliminary enquiry, a committee has to be constituted. If that be the case, no man can work in a place, where women work. Law contemplates protection to women and weaker sections of the society. At the same time, men also cannot be harassed by fictious, anonymous or pseudonymous, baseless complaints. The Executive Council of SIET is a body comprising of well reputed persons, managing and administering many educational institutions and therefore, if any anonymous or pseudonymous complaint is received, the Executive Council or the Chairman of the Council, can always verify its authenticity before proceeding further. The verification done by the Chairman, through a Governmental Agency, i.e., Postal Department, cannot be faulted as vitiated.