Source of Information:  

Information about corruption, malpractices or misconduct on the part of Government servants may come to light from any source, such as 
          (a) Complaints received by an administrative authority;
          (b) Complaints received in the Vigilance Department, Himachal Pradesh
          (c) Complaints received or intelligence gathered by the Anti Corruption Unit and by Police authorities;
          (d) Departmental inspection reports and stock verification surveys;
          (e) Scrutiny of annual property statements;
          (f)  Scrutiny of transactions reported under the conduct rules;
            (e)     Reports of any irregularities in accounts revealed in the routine audit of accounts e.g as tampering with 
               records, over-payments, misappropriation of money or materials, etc.;(f)      Audit reports on Government 
               accounts and on the accounts of Public Undertakings and other corporate bodies, etc.;
         (g)     Reports of Vidhan Sabha Committees like the Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee on Public
               Undertakings.
         (h)     Proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha
         (i)       Complaints and allegations appearing in the press, etc.

Apart from information gathered from outside sources, the ex-officio Vigilance Officer should devise and adopt such other methods as he may consider appropriate and fruitful in the context of the nature of work handled in his organization for collecting information about any possible malpractices and misconduct among the employees of his organization.

Initial Action on Complaint:

Anonymous and pseudonymous complaints;  

It has been observed  that a good many anonymous complaints are false and malicious and that such complaints are not a reliable source of information.  Inquiries into such complaints have an adverse effect on the morale of the services.  The Government of Himachal Pradesh have, therefore, decided that no action should be taken on anonymous complaints against Government servants.

The Government have also decided that pseudonymous complaints against Government servants should be treated similarly.  In case of a doubt, the pseudonymous character of a complaint could be  verified by enquiring from the signatory of the complaint whether it has actually been sent by him.  If he cannot be contacted at the address given in the complaint or if no reply is received from him within a reasonable time it should be presumed that the complaint is pseudonymous and should be filed.

Complaints received by Administrative Departments;  

When a complaint is received by the Administrative Department, it will examine whether it contains allegations of corruption or improper motive or involves a vigilance angle or not.  If the complaint in question contains an allegation of corruption or improper motive or allegations of vigilance nature, then the complaint should be forwarded to the Vigilance Department for its advice. The Vigilance Department will then decide as to whether the complaint is to be enquired into by an officer of the department concerned or by the Anti-Corruption Unit. If the allegations contained in the complaint are such as to make a prima facie case for investigation then the Vigilance Department will advise Anti-Corruption Unit to register the case for investigation.  As soon as the S.P.(Vigilance) takes up the complaint either for enquiry or for investigation, he will inform the Heads of Department concerned.         

Complaints which are purely of administrative nature or of technical lapses such as late attendance, disobedience, insubordination,  negligence, lack of supervision or operational or technical irregularities or any other lapses not having any vigilance angle will not be forwarded to the Vigilance Department.  On such complaints, the Administrative Department concerned will take appropriate action of its own,  In certain cases, the allegations contained in a complaint may be of both types i.e. of vigilance nature as well as of administrative nature, In certain other cases it may be difficult to decide whether a particular complaint contains allegations of vigilance nature or of administrative nature. All such complaints should be forwarded to the Vigilance Department for its advice as to the further course of action.  

In cases in which the allegations are such as to indicate prima facie that a criminal offence has been committed but the offence is one which is different from those defined in section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sections 161 to 165-A 409,420,465,468, 471 and 471-A of the Indian Penal Code, then the case should be handed over to the local Police for proper investigation.

Complaints Received in the Vigilance Department:

When a complaint is received by Vigilance Department from any source(either from A.C.U or from A.D or directly from the complainant), it will decide whether to entrust the complaint to an officer or the Administrative Department for enquiry or to the Anti-Corruption Unit for enquiry/investigation.  When the Vigilance Department decides to entrust a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Unit for enquiry/investigation, the Administrative Department concerned will be informed immediately.  As soon as the S.P.(Vigilance) takes up a complaint for enquiry/investigation he will also inform the Head of Department concerned giving a gist of the allegations about which the enquiry/investigation is being made.

As a general rule cases of the types given below are entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Unit by the Vigilance Department:-
(i)       Allegations involving bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, 
       falsification of records,  etc.;     
(ii)         Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income;
(iii)        Cases in which the allegations are such that their truth cannot be ascertained without making enquiries from 
       non-official persons or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of accounts etc.

Once a case has been entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Unit for enquiry/investigation, further enquiries should be left to them and departmental enquiry, if any, commenced already should be held in abeyance until such time as the enquiry/ investigation by A.C.U has been completed.  Parallel enquiry by a departmental officer of any kind should be avoided.

Preliminary enquiry by departmental officers:

After it has been decided that the allegation contained in a complaint should be looked into departmentally, the administrative department should decide whether the allegations are to be inquired into by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer or some other departmental officer.  In cases where appreciation and examination or technical data and documents is involved, the administrative authority should appoint a technical officer to enquire into the allegations. Similarly if the Government servant complained against is of senior rank then the enquiry should be entrusted to an officer of sufficiently higher status.  The officer so appointed to enquire into the allegations should proceed to make a preliminary enquiry to determine whether prima facie there is some substance in them.

After the preliminary enquiry has been completed the officer who has made the enquiry will prepare a self contained report showing whether or not sufficient evidence is available to support the allegations.  The Enquiry Officer will submit his report to the disciplinary authority.  The latter will then forward the report of the Inquiry Officer together with its comments to the Vigilance Department for advice.  The Vigilance Department will then examine the report and give its advice to the Administrative Department as to the further course of action oto be taken on the enquiry report.

Preliminary enquiry/regular investigation by the Anti-Corruption Unit:

In all cases in which the information available with Anti- Corruption Unit appears to be authentic and definite so as to make out a clear cognizable offence or to have enough substance in it, the unit may register a regular case or register a preliminary enquiry against a non-gazetted official under orders of the Superintendent of Police(Vigilance) who will also inform the Vigilance Department and the Heads of the Department concerned as soon as the enquiry is taken up, to the case is registered.  For this purpose the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors in the zones will collect information about cases of corruption and may forward the same with their recommendations directly to the Superintendent of Police(Vigilance) with copies to the Deputy Superintendent  of Police in charge of their Zones.  However, all complaints/source reports against gazetted officers received by the Anti-Corruption Unit will, in the first instance, be forwarded to the Vigilance Department for orders as to the further course of action to be taken on them. The Heads of Departments will be taken into confidence in respect of all preliminary enquiries and regular investigation of cases by the Anti-Corruption Unit against gazetted officers and non-gazetted officials.

If on completion of investigation the Anti-Corruption Unit may come to the conclusion that sufficient evidence is forthcoming for launching a criminal prosecution against the accused Government servant then the final report of investigation in such cases shall be forwarded to the Vigilance Department if sanction for prosecution is required under the law.  The report will be accompanied by a draft order in the prescribed form and give the rank and designation of the authority competent to dismiss the delinquent officer from service and the law or rules under which the authority is competent.

If on the completion of a preliminary enquiry or on the completion of investigation of a case in which the evidence available is not sufficient for launching criminal prosecution, the Anti-Corruption Unit may come to the conclusion that:

(i)                 the allegations are of a nature serious enough to justify regular departmental action being taken against the Government servant concerned. The final report in such cases will be accompanied by (a) draft articles of charge prepared in the prescribed form,(b) a statement of allegations in support of each charge, and (c) a list of witnesses and documents to be relied upon to prove the charges and allegations; or

(ii)               while sufficient proof is not available to justify prosecution or regular departmental action, there is a reasonable suspicion about the honesty or integrity of the Government  servant concerned. The final report in such cases will seek to bring to the notice of the disciplinary authority the nature of irregularity or negligence for such administrative action as may be considered feasible or appropriate.

In cases in which preliminary enquiry discloses that there is no substance in the allegations, the Anti-Corruption Unit may decide to close the case.  Such cases pertaining to gazetted officers will be reported to the Vigilance Department. In other cases the decision to close a case should be communicated by the Anti-Corruption Unit to the  administrative authority concerned through the Vigilance Department.

Investigation in certain cases may reveal that sufficient evidence is available justifying prosecution as well as departmental action.  In such cases it has to be considered as to whether prosecution should precede departmental action or vice versa.  Normally prosecution should be the general rule in cases in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial public funds and which are found fit for prosecution on the basis of the evidence available.  In such cases departmental action should not precede prose3cution.  In other cases involving less serious offences or involving malpractices of a departmental nature, departmental action should be taken and the question of prosetcution should generally not arise. 

Action against persons making false complaints:

If a complaint against a Government servant is found to be malicious, vexatious or unfounded, it should be seriously considered whether action should be taken against the complainant for making a false complaint.

Under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code a person making false complaint can be prosecuted.  Section 182 reads as follows:-

“ Whoever gives to ant public servant any information which be knows or believes to be false intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant –

(a)      to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b)     to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

If a person making a false complaint is a public servant, it may be considered whether departmental action should be taken against him as an alternative to prosecution.

Under section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, a person making a false complaint can be prosecuted on a complaint lodged with a court of competent jurisdiction by the public servant to whom the false complaint was made or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.  Section 195(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows:-

Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence:- (1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or  (i)   of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

When the Vigilance Department comes across any such complain while dealing with matters that come up before it, the department would advise the administrative authority concerned about appropriate action to be taken on its own initiative.

Expeditious completion of vigilance complaints and  vigilance Cases:

The ex-officio Vigilance Officer of each department should keep a close watch on the progress made for disposal of vigilance complaints and vigilance cases.  He should ensure that these are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. To keep a watch on the progress made in this respect, he is required to send quarterly returns and half yearly returns to the Vigilance Department on prescribed proforma given in the appendix.  He should ensure that these returns are submitted within the stipulated period.  Unnecessary delays in completion of vigilance complaints/cases by the Anti-Corruption Unit or by the Inquiring Authorities or by the Vigilance Department should be brought to the personal notice of the Director of Vigilance by the ex-officio Vigilance Officers of the department. The ex-officio Vigilance Officer should also submit the progress made in all vigilance complaints/cases to the Head of the Department and the Administrative Secretaries once in every quarter.

Maintenance of Vigilance Complaint and Vigilance Case Register:

The ex-officio Vigilance Officer in Administrative Department will maintain two registers namely (1) Vigilance Complaint Register, and (2) Vigilance Case Register on the prescribed proforma given in the appendix.  The Vigilance Department will also maintain these two registers department-wise.

When a complaint is taken up for enquiry by a departmental officer on the advice of the Vigilance Department, it will be entered in the ‘Vigilance Complaint Register’ both by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Department concerned and by the Vigilance Department.  Similarly when a complaint is taken up for enquiry/investigation by A.C.U., it will be entered in the ‘Vigilance Complaint Register’ both by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Department concerned and by the Vigilance Department.

If on an examination of the enquiry report submitted by the Administrative Department or by A.C.U. the Vigilance Department advises the Administrative Department to start regular departmental action against the delinquent(s) then it will take the shape of a vigilance.

Case and will be entered in the ‘Vigilance Case Register’ by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Department concerned and by the Vigilance Department. In case the Vigilance Department advises A.C.U. to register a case for regular investigation on the basis of the enquiry report, it will remain a vigilance complaint and will not be entered in the ‘Vigilance Case Register’.

After the investigation is completed by A.C.U., if the Vigilance Department advises the Administrative Department to start regular departmental action against the delinquent(s), it will take the form of a vigilance case and will be entered in the ‘Vigilance Case Register’ both by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Department concerned and by the Vigilance Department. Similarly if prosecution is launched by A.C.U., after prosecution sanction is accorded by the competent authority, the case takes the form of a vigilance case and will be entered in the ‘ Vigilance Case Register’ both by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Department concerned and by the Vigilance Department.

The two registers will be maintained up-to-date both by the ex-officio Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Departments and by the Vigilance Department.