Pseudonymous complaint cannot be acted upon: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set at naught proceedings sought to be initiated against a Kargil martyr’s brother on the basis of a pseudonymous complaint. Justice Augustine George Masih has made it clear that a pseudonymous complaint cannot be acted upon by a Punjab Government instrumentality in light of the instructions issued in May 1967and a HC judgment.

Deependra Singh Garcha had moved the HC against Punjab and other respondents challenging the order dated January 29, 2014, passed by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Administration).

The Bench was told the petitioner’s response was called for and an inquiry was sought to be initiated against him on the basis of a pseudonymous complaint filed against him, alleging he was not dependent on his brother Capt Rupinder Singh Garcha martyred during the Kargil war. As such, his initial appointment the Excise and Taxation Officer was bad in law and, therefore, unsustainable.

Appearing before the Bench, the counsel for the petitioner contended that this very aspect had earlier been inquired into by the respondents on a similar complaint. It was spiked on the basis of a HC judgment, which ruled that the dependence of a person on the now-deceased man was irrelevant and had no role to play therein. As such, appointment on compassionate grounds was justified.

His counsel added the initiation of the present inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint dated December 29, 2013, was uncalled for. The counsel added an order was passed by the HC during the course of hearing of the present petition calling for a report from the Amritsar Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Justice Masih asserted that the petition deserved to be allowed firstly on the ground that a similar complaint had already been spiked by the competent authority. “The second reason why this writ petition deserves to be allowed is that this is a pseudonymous complaint, which has been filed against the petitioner as stands established from the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. It, therefore, could not have been acted upon by the respondent-Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Administration) in the light of the Punjab Government Instructions dated May 3, 1967, and also the judgment of this Court in Rajwant Kaur’s case (supra)”.