Defending the whistle-blower – martyr SKD let down by Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Atal Bansal in SKDF. Did not follow up the Dubey Case with any authorities and advised to block the CBI Investigation.

Defending the whistle-blower

V.VENKATESAN
in New Delhi

The Supreme Court prompts the government to draft a resolution seeking to protect whistle-blowers.

A CONDITION that can encourage corruption is the absence of mechanisms by which instances of fraud and malpractice can be brought to light by a public spirited person, without risking his or her interest or safety. Such a person, a `whistle-blower' in legal parlance, needs institutional protection against victimisation by the target of his or her action. Ensuring the anonymity of the whistle-blower, therefore, is essential for any such mechanism to be meaningful.

K. BHAGYA PRAKASH 

P. Shankar, Chief Vigilance Commissioner.

The murder of Satyendra Dubey, a young engineer working for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), on November 29, 2003, after he confidentially complained against the corrupt practices in the execution of the Prime Minister's Golden Quadrilateral road project in Bihar, came as a stark reminder of the absence of such a mechanism. He had sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister's Office complaining of corruption in the construction of the highway in Bihar, with a copy to the chairman of the NHAI with a specific request that his identity be not disclosed as he feared for his life (Frontline, February 27, 2004). He wrote again to the Chairman complaining that his identity had been leaked to the authorities concerned. After a few days Satyendra Dubey was found dead with bullet injuries.

While the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is investigating the murder, two public interest petitioners sought the Supreme Court's directions for the immediate creation of a mechanism to protect whistle-blowers. The petitioners also sought a proper probe into Satyendra Dubey's murder and the various allegations of corruption in the project. On April 21, under pressure from the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Ruma Pal and P.V. Reddy, which heard the public interest litigation on the Dubey murder case, the National Democratic Alliance government announced an interim arrangement to protect whistle-blowers, pending the enactment of a law. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions notified a resolution, empowering the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) to act on the complaints of whistle-blowers and to protect them.

Through the resolution, the government authorised the CVC to act as the `designated agency' to receive written complaints of corruption or misuse of office and recommend appropriate action. The jurisdiction of the CVC in this regard is restricted to any employee of the Central government or public sector companies. Personnel employed by State governments will not come under its purview.

The CVC has announced that it has the responsibility of keeping the identity of the complainant secret, even though it cannot stop the complainant himself from disclosing his identity or making the complaint public. Therefore, it asked the would-be complainants to comply with certain requirements:

* The complaint should be in a closed/secured envelope;

* The envelope should be superscribed "Complaint under The Public Interest Disclosure" and the complainant's name and address should not be written on the envelope, but in an attached letter along with the complaint;

* The Commission will not entertain anonymous complaints;

* The text of the complaint should be carefully drafted so as not to give any details or clue about the complainant's identity. However, the details of the complaint should be specific and verifiable;

* Whistle-blowers are advised not to enter into any correspondence with the Commission seeking acknowledgement, which it will not issue, as a precaution; however, the Commission will get in touch with the complainant if any clarification is required. The CVC, under the resolution, is also expected to ascertain from the complainant whether he or she was the person who made the complaint.

THE CVC, however, warned that it could take action against complainants making motivated or vexatious complaints. The resolution says that in case the designated agency (the CVC) finds the complaint to be motivated or vexatious, it shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps. However, the resolution is silent on how the agency would find out whether a complaint is motivated or vexatious, or what "appropriate steps" it would to take against the complainant in such cases.

The resolution admits that the government is examining The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers' Bill, 2002, drafted by the Law Commission and annexed to its 179th report. Section 16 of the draft Bill is more specific: "Any person who makes any disclosure which was false to his knowledge or reckless or malicious, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to three years and also to fine which may extend up to Rs.50,000." But neither the Law Commission's report nor its draft Bill throws any light on how the designated authority can find out the genuineness of the complaint. The report, on the contrary, adds that it will not be constitutionally or even otherwise permissible to punish a person merely because the facts and allegations mentioned in the disclosure could not be proved in the inquiry conducted by the `competent authority'. It is possible to suggest that the draft Bill and the resolution have granted the "designated authority" unjustifiable discretion in this matter, which could discourage a potential whistle-blower.

S. SUBRAMANIUM 

A sketch of Satyendra Dubey during a march organised in his memory in New Delhi. The resolution is an improvement on the draft Bill to the extent that it guarantees confidentiality to the whistle-blower, whereas the Bill seeks to empower the designated agency to determine whether the whistle-blower's identity needs to be kept a secret. However, the resolution suffers from another serious incongruity: it says that only if the designated agency is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, it shall issue appropriate directions to the authorities concerned. The designated agency has to be "convinced" about the need for the whistle-blower's protection.

One major lacuna in the resolution is it does not make the recommendation of the CVC binding on the government. The CVC, either as a result of his discreet inquiry or on the basis of the complaint itself, may find substance in the allegations of corruption. It could use the Central Bureau of Investigation or the police authorities to investigate the complaint. In that event, the CVC could only "recommend appropriate action" to the government department or the organisation concerned against the guilty official. The punitive action could include redress of the loss caused to the government, initiation of criminal proceedings, and corrective measures to prevent recurrence of such cases. The CVC, P. Shankar, has deplored this aspect of the resolution, as, in his view, the Commissioner needs sanction before he can order prosecution. Yet, he has called the resolution a good beginning.

The exclusion of Ministers and other government functionaries from the ambit of the resolution has dismayed observers, who have questioned the assumption that there cannot be any whistle-blowing against the excluded functionaries.

Entrusting the CVC as the `designated authority' under the resolution is itself debatable, considering the fact that the limited powers they enjoy have constrained their performance.

There is a political consensus on the need for legislation to protect whistle-blowers. Sadly, however, the NDA government neither had the time nor the political will to debate and enact the Law Commission's draft Bill which was submitted to it in December 2001. Proper legislation could have saved the life of Dubey.

With the resolution, India has joined the select band of four democracies protecting whistle-blowers: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. As and when Parliament enacts a law to replace the resolution, it will get an opportunity to debate afresh problems arising out of the perceived deficiencies in the draft Bill and the resolution and set them right by learning from the experience of the countries that have similar laws.

Dubey murder figures in Parliament: Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Atal Bansal did not follow up any any matters of martyr SKD case

Dubey murder figures in Parliament

December 09, 2003 17:23 IST
Last Updated: December 09, 2003 17:37 IST

The murder of National Highways Authority of India engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was raised in Parliament on Tuesday.

The murder is being linked to Dubey's letter to the Prime Minister's Office exposing improper utilisation of funds and sub-standard quality of work in the Golden Quadrilateral Project. The Golden Quadrilateral, prime minister's pet project, aims to connect the four corners of the country by four-lane roads. Communist Party of India-Marxist member Somnath Chatterjee drew the attention of the House to the fact that the engineer's specific request that his name not be divulged was allegedly ignored by the PMO. He asked the government to state its stand on Dubey's murder and explain how it could allow such a prestigious project to be mired in corruption and mismanagement.

“); } //–>

SKDF did not follow up with PRESS and COURTS to turn the Satyendra Dubey letter to PMO dated November 11, 2002 in to a charge sheet. Shows FAILURE of Ashutosh Aman Mishra and Atal Bansal of SKDF.

PRESS did not turn the Satyendra Dubey letter to PMO dated November 11, 2002 in to a charge sheet.
November 11, 2002 Letter to PMO
martyr SKD wrote – A dream project of unparalleled importance to the Nation
Read the following:
N. Ram Of The Hindu Is No Ram
Sucheta has taken the lead in exposing the professional misconduct of press. Press has very incompetently covered development and economy related issues.
N. Ram of The Hindu is No Ram, he may try to appear to be champion of freedom of press but he is no better than his rivals in business.
I have tried to raise very critical issues like Kaveri dispute or Narmada dispute for example but none in the press dared to cover it. Example:- When most of the water in KRS dam shall be lost on way to farmers why Supreme Court wanted to release barely minimum amount for Karnataka’s priority needs. Firstly press doesn’t have the skilled reporters and secondly, like most politicians, doesn’t want to convey bitter truth to people.
Press as the “Balancing Pillar” of democracy and efficient governance is as feeble as other three Indian constitutional pillars, legislature, executive and judiciary.
Press seldom challenges the bad decisions of the government when it does; it addresses the public outrage due to certain event.
Indian Express was the only newspaper that extensively covered Dubey story. But it did not turn the Satyendra Dubey letter in to a charge sheet.
In India role of judiciary in keeping a check on the functioning of legislature and executive is limited there press has to fill the gap.
On policy issues judiciary has limited powers and procedure is slow and complicated but press can respond instantly the way Corruptionfree responds.
There is huge credibility gap that press has to bridge.
Ravinder Singh
—————–
Under N. Ram, the Hindu becomes a ’sorry’ paper
Posted by: “Sucheta Dalal” suchetadalal@yahoo.com
Tue Jun 6, 2006 12:21 pm (PST)

Hello all

Freedom of press?

This is a horrifying new trend that will affect the entire media and ultimately freedom of __expression in the country.

Are editors/owners crawling when asked to bend? Do they really need to bend in order to get advertising?

Has survival become so tough for the media?

If things are so bad with print, you can imagine how much worse it is in the audio-visual media.

Everybody needs to think about this. Would appreciate reactions.

best
Sucheta

Under N. Ram, the Hindu becomes a ’sorry’ paper ARVIND SWAMINATHAN writes from Madras:
Editors, reporters and correspondents at The Hindu are in a state of shock and disbelief today after another grovelling apology to an automotive major from their card-carrying Editor-in-Chief N. Ram appeared on the pages of the paper.

“In the Open Page article by R.S. Anand titled ‘The way we showcase India abroad’, a sweeping and baseless statement was made about a Kirloskar product, suggesting it was outdated. The Hindu apologises for this unwarranted assertion and withdraws the Open Page article from its website,” the apology signed by the editor-in-chief reads.

The “offending” piece by Anand, a student at RWTH in Aachen, Germany, comprised run-of-the-mill reflections on the Hannover Fair, and contained just two references to Kirloskar—both of them in the same paragraph.

“Companies such as HMT, BHEL, Kirloskar, etc, participated in the (Hannover) fair. My fellow German students were shocked to see the engine displayed by Kirloskar which was designed a century ago. They asked me, ‘Are they still using this one?’’ the “offending” paragraph went.

That was enough for Ram, otherwise a champion of free ___expression on television and in public forums, to go out crawling on all fours.

“Just what does our editor find so sweeping and baseless about that statement,” asked a senior editor of the paper on condition of anonymity. “And anyway it is not the author’s statement, it is the quote of a German visitor.”

Hindu staffers are bemused that Ram, otherwise particular about details, should not have published the date of publication of the offending piece—May 21, 2006—in the apology. “It’s almost as if he doesn’t want readers who have back copies of the paper at home to go back and check,” a staffer said.

At the same time, many senior editors and journalists within and outside the Hindu are horrified that the whole article has been axed from the paper’s website although the references to Kirloskar were contained in only one paragraph.

“Look at the irony. We lecture the world on why Da Vinci Code should not be censored. We lecture the world on why Fanaa should not be blacked out. And yet, because some rich family is offended, we remove the whole piece from the website. Is only the paragraph at fault or the whole piece? And what will the author tell his German friends about The Hindu? That the paper has very elastic journalistic ethics, depending on who is offended ?” the editor asked.

There is yet a third angle to the apology which is that it comes over and above the head of the much-vaunted Reader’s Editor, K. Narayanan, whom Ram has been projecting as the panacea of all journalistic ills in the country.

“Was Kirloskar’s complaint brought to the notice of the Reader’s Editor? If not, why ? If so, what was the substance of the complaint—that somebody had a view that the advertiser did not like? So, is Ram the Advertiser’s Editor? Doesn’t this undermine the position of the Reader’s Editor,” a staffer asked.

The Kirloskar apology is the second inside 20 months since Ram displaced Malini Parthasarathy and his brother N. Ravi in a bloodless palace coup.

On October 20, 2004, Ram published this: “The contents, tone and language of ‘Kudos to Tata Motors’ by C. Manmohan Reddy (Business Review, The Hindu, October 18, 2004) are highly inappropriate. The Hindu conveys its deep regrets to Mahindra and Mahindra and also to Kotak Mahindra, ICICI Bank, and Citibank for the publication of the article.”

In that case, all the “offending” piece did was to lambast Mahindra and Mahindra for showing a “singular lack of responsibility towards the environment”.

“They choose to sell Bharat Stage I versions of the vehicle in large numbers in many of the 11, large and environmentally sensitive, cities where all the other automotive manufacturers have switched to BS II versions—all to save about Rs. 5,000 to 6,000 on very profitable SUVs that cost nearly Rs. 8 lakhs, on the road,” Reddy wrote.

That was enough for Ram to apologise to M&M and the auto finance companies. However unlike in the Kirloskar case, the offending M&M piece continues to remain on the paper’s website along with the apology two days later.

Media watchers say they are not surprised that both the apologies have gone out to automotive companies, which are big advertisers on the pages of The Hindu and many of which are located in Tamil Nadu.

What they find hilarious is that a committed communist should be so servile and obsequious to capitalists.

“Here’s a paper that day in and day out extols Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, Prakash and Brinda Karat. And yet to see it saying sorry for such minor journalistic indiscretions, if they are indiscretions, suggests duplicity, if not plain hypocrisy,” says a journalist who has seen better days under G. Kasturi.
__________________________________________________

martyr SKD message

A dream project of unparalleled importance to the Nation but in reality a great loot of public money because of very poor implementation at every state.

All parties say we need to protect whistleblowers, Somnath demands statement in LS

Chorus: we shall sign the whistleblower Bill

     

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 9: The unrelenting public outrage over the murder of Satyendra Dubey following The Indian Express coverage of the tragedy, has finally led to a groundswell of support across the political spectrum for the enactment of a Whistleblower Act, the draft of which has been lying in cold storage for the past 24 months.

Cutting across political lines, leading members of the ruling coalition as well as the Opposition today came out in support of a legislation that would protect the identity of a whistleblower in future so that more Dubeys can come out against corruption in public life without risking their lives.

The author of the draft, Justice Reddy, had told The Indian Express yesterday that had the Government acted upon his Bill and passed a law, ‘‘Dubey wouldn’t have died.’’

Although no NDA minister has spoken out on the issue so far, BJP spokesman M A Naqvi and TDP leader in the Lok Sabha Yerran Naidu both favoured the passage of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill, the formal name given to the Whsitleblower Bill that was drafted by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy more than two years ago.

BJP general secretary Naqvi told The Indian Express, ‘‘Whenever there is a whistleblower around, the government must lend him a ear. Otherwise, there will be no way to check people who are running a parallel system and consider themselves above the law.’’

Pledging support to the bill whether it came ‘‘in this session or next,’’ TDP leader Yerran Naidu said: ‘‘In the interest of corrupt-free governance, it is the need of the hour to protect those who inform the government on corruption. It is also the constitutional duty of the government to protect those who boldly come to inform about nefarious dealings.’’

Congress leader Jaipal Reddy asserted that his party was in favour of the Act and would welcome ‘‘anything that brings more transparency to the system.’’

CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee, who demanded a statement from the government on the murder of Dubey in the Lok Sabha today, said: ‘‘There is a lacuna in the legal system and also in our administrative system, and our party will certainly support and welcome a legislation to protect whistle blowers.’’

Criticising the ‘‘extreme apathy’’ shown by the government to Dubey’s charges, he said, ‘‘A country which is fighting corruption at the government level needs to provide some form of protection to informers to come out against the system.’’

Echoing his sentiments, CPI general secretary A B Bardhan said: ‘‘There is an urgent need to bring a legislation that can protect those who are ready to expose corruption. Otherwise, no one will come forward to and risk their lives to take on the rot in the system, especially after what happened to Dubey whose plea for protection was not honoured.’’

Regional parties, including the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party, also promised support if the government were to bring forward such a legislation before Parliament.

Said SP general secretary Amar Singh: ‘‘We have not yet discussed the merits of the proposed legislation in the party forum but I will ensure my party favours such a bill. It is ethical to support someone who is upright and forthright.’’

Pointing out anybody who gives information needs protection, Singh said just as the media does not need to reveal its sources, ‘‘We need something similar for whistleblowers.’’

BSP leader Rashid Alvi also asserted that anybody who disclosed a corrupt act ‘‘whether by bureaucrats or politicians’’ needed protection, ‘‘provided he has the proof.’’

While expressing support for a legislation on these lines, he cautioned that ‘‘if anyone misuses the law to assassinate character, there should be a provision to prosecute the offender.’’

Parliament: From TDP to BSP, all parties say we need to protect whistleblowers, Somnath demands statement in LS

Chorus: we shall sign the whistleblower Bill

EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 9: The unrelenting public outrage over the murder of Satyendra Dubey following The Indian Express coverage of the tragedy, has finally led to a groundswell of support across the political spectrum for the enactment of a Whistleblower Act, the draft of which has been lying in cold storage for the past 24 months.

Cutting across political lines, leading members of the ruling coalition as well as the Opposition today came out in support of a legislation that would protect the identity of a whistleblower in future so that more Dubeys can come out against corruption in public life without risking their lives.

The author of the draft, Justice Reddy, had told The Indian Express yesterday that had the Government acted upon his Bill and passed a law, ‘‘Dubey wouldn’t have died.’’

Although no NDA minister has spoken out on the issue so far, BJP spokesman M A Naqvi and TDP leader in the Lok Sabha Yerran Naidu both favoured the passage of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill, the formal name given to the Whsitleblower Bill that was drafted by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy more than two years ago.

BJP general secretary Naqvi told The Indian Express, ‘‘Whenever there is a whistleblower around, the government must lend him a ear. Otherwise, there will be no way to check people who are running a parallel system and consider themselves above the law.’’

Pledging support to the bill whether it came ‘‘in this session or next,’’ TDP leader Yerran Naidu said: ‘‘In the interest of corrupt-free governance, it is the need of the hour to protect those who inform the government on corruption. It is also the constitutional duty of the government to protect those who boldly come to inform about nefarious dealings.’’

Congress leader Jaipal Reddy asserted that his party was in favour of the Act and would welcome ‘‘anything that brings more transparency to the system.’’

CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee, who demanded a statement from the government on the murder of Dubey in the Lok Sabha today, said: ‘‘There is a lacuna in the legal system and also in our administrative system, and our party will certainly support and welcome a legislation to protect whistle blowers.’’

Criticising the ‘‘extreme apathy’’ shown by the government to Dubey’s charges, he said, ‘‘A country which is fighting corruption at the government level needs to provide some form of protection to informers to come out against the system.’’

Echoing his sentiments, CPI general secretary A B Bardhan said: ‘‘There is an urgent need to bring a legislation that can protect those who are ready to expose corruption. Otherwise, no one will come forward to and risk their lives to take on the rot in the system, especially after what happened to Dubey whose plea for protection was not honoured.’’

Regional parties, including the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party, also promised support if the government were to bring forward such a legislation before Parliament.

Said SP general secretary Amar Singh: ‘‘We have not yet discussed the merits of the proposed legislation in the party forum but I will ensure my party favours such a bill. It is ethical to support someone who is upright and forthright.’’

Pointing out anybody who gives information needs protection, Singh said just as the media does not need to reveal its sources, ‘‘We need something similar for whistleblowers.’’

BSP leader Rashid Alvi also asserted that anybody who disclosed a corrupt act ‘‘whether by bureaucrats or politicians’’ needed protection, ‘‘provided he has the proof.’’

While expressing support for a legislation on these lines, he cautioned that ‘‘if anyone misuses the law to assassinate character, there should be a provision to prosecute the offender.’’

Vajpayee demands murder inquiry By Soutik Biswas

Vajpayee demands murder inquiry

By Soutik Biswas BBC News Online correspondent in Delhi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3306075.stm

Murdered engineer Satyendra Dubey (photo: Indian Express)

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has asked the nation's top detective agency to probe the murder of an engineer working on a road project. The engineer was killed last month in Bihar, eastern India, nearly a year after complaining to Mr Vajpayee about corruption in a massive road project.

"Those responsible for his death, wherever they may be, will not be spared," said Mr Vajpayee.

There has been widespread shock in India over the incident.

Dream project

Satyendra Dubey, a 31-year-old civil engineering graduate from the country's prestigious Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), was gunned down by unknown assailants on 27 November.

He was working on a section of India's biggest ever road project – a $12bn scheme to build nearly 14,000 kilometres of roads across India.

About 250,000 people are working on the road project

Mr Dubey had written to Mr Vajpayee and the network authorities about the public money "looted" during the project's execution.

"Like all right thinking Indians I am shocked and saddened by the murder of Satyendra Dubey, an upright and dedicated officer," said Mr Vajpayee in a statement.

"The project is a great dream not merely for me but for the entire nation."

"Thanks to the efforts to talented engineers like Dubey, it has made remarkable progress already and my government is committed to ensuring that those working on it complete it without any fear," said Mr Vajpayee.

Call for new laws

Mr Dubey's death has sparked off unprecedented condemnation and sympathy in a country where there are frequent allegations of public money being siphoned off from big ticket government projects.

The Indian Express newspaper, which broke the story on the incident, reported that that Mr Dubey was killed after his name was leaked from the complaint he had sent to the prime minister's office and the road network authority.

The incident has also led political parties to raise fresh demands for bringing in laws to protect whistle-blowers.

The laws have been pending approval by the federal government for the last two years.

Shock and sympathy

The Indian Express newspaper has received over 25,000 letters on the incident, websites condemning the death have sprung up, and offers to financially help Mr Dubey's family have poured in.

Narayana NR Murthy, the chairman of the Board of Infosys Technologies, one of India's largest companies – and an IIT alumnus himself – has also condemned the murder.

"I urge the prime minister to suspend the contract with the contractor involved, hold an investigation on top priority, and swiftly punish the guilty with the toughest possible judgement," Mr Murthy said in a statement.

"Let this be the last such tragedy in India," he added.

Mr Vajpayee said the "outpouring of sympathy for Dubey from across the world shows that Indians, wherever they are have a commitment to honesty and transparency and a significant stake in the country's future".

He said he had recently visited the IIT centre where Mr Dubey had been educated and was inspired by the "talent, sense of hope and commitment among the students and faculty".

"We can't let criminals or vested interests weaken that spirit," Mr Vajpayee said.

The Gazette of India dated April 21, 2004

The Gazette of India

Extraordinary

Part I – Section I

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004/VAISHAKHA 1, 1926

————————-

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

RESOLUTION

New Delhi, the 21^{st April 2004}

 

No.371/12/2002-AVD-III – Whereas while hearing Writ Petition (C) No.539/2003 regarding the murder of Shri Satyendra Dubey, the Supreme court desired that pending enactment of a suitable legislation, suitable machinery should be put in place for acting on complaints from "whistle-blowers".

And whereas the "The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers’ Bill, 2002, drafted by the Law Commission is under examination.

Now, therefore, the Central Government hereby resolves as under:

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is hereby authorized, as the Designated Agency, to receive written complaints or disclosure on any allegation of corruption or of misuse of office by any employee of the Central Government or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government. The disclosure or complaint shall contain as full particulars as possible and shall be accompanied by supporting documents or other material.

The designated agency may, if it deems fit call for further information or particulars from the persons making the disclosure. If the complaint is anonymous, the designated agency shall not take any action in the matter.

Notwithstanding any contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, any public servant other than those referred to clauses (a) to (d) of Article 33 of the Constitution or any other person including any non-governmental organisation, may make a written disclosure to the designated agency.

If the complaint is accompanied by particulars of the person making the complaint, the designated agency shall take the following steps:

(i) The designated agency will ascertain from the complainant whether he was the person who made the complaint or not.

(ii) The identify of the complainant will not be revealed unless the complainant himself has made the details of the complaint either public or disclosed his identity to any other office or authority.

(iii) After concealing the identity of the complainant, the designated agency shall make, in the first instance, discreet inquiries to ascertain if there is any basis of proceeding further with the complaint. For this purpose, the designated agency shall devise an appropriate machinery.

(iv) Either as a result of the discreet inquiry, or on the basis of the complaint itself without any inquiry, if the designated agency is of the opinion that the matter requires to be investigated further, the designated agency shall officially seek comments/or explanation from the Head of the department of the concerned organisation or office. While doing so, the designated agency shall not disclose the identity of the informant and also shall request the concerned Head of the organisation to keep the identity of the informant secret, if for any reason, the concerned Head comes to know the identity.

(v) After obtaining the response of the concerned organisation, if the designated agency is of the opinion that the investigations reveal either misuse of office or substantiate allegations of corruption, the designated agency shall recommend appropriate action to the concerned Government Department or Organization. These shall, inter alia, include the following:

(a) Appropriate proceedings to be initiated against the concerned Government servant.

(b) Appropriate administrative steps for redressing the loss caused to the Government as a result of the corrupt act or misuse of office, as the case may be.

(c) Recommend to the appropriate authority/agency initiation of criminal proceedings in suitable cases, if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Recommend taking of corrective measures to prevent recurrence of such events in future.

5. For the purpose of making discreet inquiry or obtaining information from the concerned organisation, the designated agency shall be authorized to call upon the CBI or the police authorities, as concerned necessary, to render all assistance to complete the investigation pursuant to the complaint received.

6. If any person is aggrieved by any action on the ground that he is being victimized due to the fact that he had filed a complaint or disclosure, he may file an application before the designated agency seeking redress in the matter, who shall take such action, as deemed fit. The designated agency may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority as the case may be.

7. Either on the application of the complainant, or on the basis of the information gathered, if the designated agency is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, the designated agency shall issue appropriate directions to the concerned Government authorities.

8. The machinery evolved herein shall be in addition to the existing mechanisms in place. However, secrecy of identity shall be observed, only if the complaint is received under this machinery.

9. In case the designated agency finds the complaint to be motivated or vexatious, the designated agency shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps.

10. The designated agency shall not entertain or inquire into any disclosure:

in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered under the Public Servants Act, 1850; or

in respect of a matter which has been referred for inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

11. In the event of the identity of the informant being disclosed in spite of the designated agency’s directions to the contrary, the designated agency is authorized to initiate appropriate action as per extant regulations against the person or agency king such disclosure.

12. The machinery created herein shall operate till the Parliament passes a law on the subject.

 

SMT. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, Addl. Secy