NEW DELHI: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has asked government departments not to take action on anonymous complaints of corruption against their employees. In a letter dated March 7, the CVC told the departments and public-sector undertakings to simply accept such complaints.
“No action should be taken on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints in line with the commission’s present instructions dated November 25, 2014 and such complaints should be filed,” the letter said.
The anti-corruption agency had first issued an circular on June 29, 1999 prescribing that no action should be taken on anonymous complaints and subsequently, on October 11, 2002, reviewed the instructions clarifying that if any department proposes to look into the verifiable facts alleged in anonymous complaints it may refer the matter to the commission. Now, in its latest instruction, it has directed the departments that action pursuedon anonymous or pseudonymous complaints filed prior to the issue of the 1999 circular can be pursued to their logical end.
The CVC said that it had been receiving references from government departments seeking clarification on the action to be taken on anonymous complaints, which were acted on at different stages. The commission had also held consultations with the Attorney-General on the issue before issuing instructions. “In cases where action was initiated on anonymous complaints prior to the issue of the CVC circular in 1999 and was pending as on June 29, 1999, it can be pursued further to its logical end,” the letter said. The CVC observed that sometimes such complaints are made against officers at the time when they become due for promotion or retirement and appear to be motivated. These complaints are seen as a result of professional rivalry, a CVC official said.
“On an average 3,000 anonymous complaints are received annually against officers alleging corruption without any evidence or verifiable facts. Any action on such complaints is not only a waste of time but also creates roadblocks for the officers named in the complaint and their vigilance clearance for promotion is held back,” the officer said.