JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J Patowary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. HK Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Gauhati High Court. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam and the subsequent initiation of the departmental proceedings on the basis of memorandum of charges dated 30.06.2023. 3. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether on the basis of anonymous complaints, a departmental proceedings could have been initiated? 4. For adjudicating the said aspect of the matter, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the facts involved in the instant case. The record reveals that the petitioner herein was appointed as a Computer Typist in the Establishment of the respondent No.3 vide an appointment letter dated 22.08.2017. On 03.01.2023, the petitioner was suspended by the respondent No.3, pending a preliminary enquiry. Subsequent thereto, vide another order dated 31.03.2023, the said suspension order was extended by another 3(three) months contemplating initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made various enquires and thereupon on 01.04.2023 was provided with two anonymous complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023 addressed before the authorities citing malpractice against various individuals in the establishment of the respondent No.3. 6. Be that as it may, as the suspension orders dated 03.01.2023 and 31.03.2023 continued, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.2352/2023 for setting aside the said suspension orders. In the said writ petition, notices were issued on 15.05.2023. It is the further case of the petitioner that immediately thereupon the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as to why the disciplinary proceedings should not be proceeded against the petitioner. The said show cause notice was issued on the basis of a complaints received and copies of the said complaints were attached to the said show cause notice. The petitioner on receipt of the said show cause notice submitted a reply on 06.06.2023, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in those complaint petitions were purely baseless and not believable as the complaint petitions are anonymous itself. The petitioner on receipt of the said show cause notice submitted a reply on 06.06.2023, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in those complaint petitions were purely baseless and not believable as the complaint petitions are anonymous itself. In addition to that, the petitioner also denied to the various allegations stated in the said show cause notice. 7. The record reveals that pursuant thereto, on 14.06.2023, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked and it was further mentioned that the suspension period shall be considered after finalization of the departmental proceedings. Immediately thereafter, on 16.06.2023, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Munsiff, Kaliabor, Nagaon. On 28.06.2023, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon issued the release order w.e.f. from the evening of 30.06.2023 so that the petitioner could join the Office of the Munsiff, Kaliabor. On 30.06.2023, a Memorandum of Charge was issued by the respondent No.3 on the basis of the allegations contained in the anonymous complaints and asking the petitioner to submit the written statement of defence within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the said Memorandum of Charge. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the show cause proceedings and the subsequent departmental proceedings on the basis of anonymous complaints, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging both the show cause proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings. In addition to that, the transfer order of the petitioner has been also assailed on the ground that the said order had been passed to victimize the petitioner. 8. Upon filing of the instant writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 11.08.2023 issued notice and further directed that in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, no further order would be passed till the next date fixed. The record reveals that the interim order thereupon has been continued from time to time. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, jointly filed the affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was categorically mentioned that the anonymous complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023 were pertaining to a specific case, i.e. Special NDPS Case No. 191/2022. It was mentioned that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were pertaining to granting of short dates in the case to facilitate a particular lawyer. 2 and 3, jointly filed the affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was categorically mentioned that the anonymous complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023 were pertaining to a specific case, i.e. Special NDPS Case No. 191/2022. It was mentioned that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were pertaining to granting of short dates in the case to facilitate a particular lawyer. It was further mentioned that the petitioner thereupon was immediately put under suspension, pending decision in the preliminary enquiry and the suspension was reviewed and extended by another period of 3(three) months by the order dated 31.03.2023. 10. At paragraph 3.6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it was averred that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Nagaon, after receipt of the anonymous complaints. The Enquiry Officer submitted the preliminary enquiry report dated 25.04.2023. It was mentioned that the enquiry officer, after collecting all the materials and recording the statements of witnesses, arrived at a conclusion that on 14.12.2022, the petitioner was present and handled the records of the Special NDPS Case No.191/2022. During the enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner typed out the order sheet, fixed the date and put up the same for signature before the learned Presiding Officer. During the enquiry, it revealed that there were overwriting in the order sheet against the next date fixed on three pages in the order sheet of the order dated 14.12.2022 and these overwriting did not bear the initials of the Presiding Officer. It was further mentioned in the said paragraph that the enquiry further revealed from the case records that though the date was fixed by the Court, the same was changed and the next date of evidence was fixed on 19.12.2022 i.e. within a gap of 5(five) days. This change in the order did not bear the initial of the Presiding Officer and it was found that the petitioner was involved in tampering of judicial records. 11. It was further mentioned in paragraph 3.7 of the affidavit in opposition that taking into consideration the report submitted by the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 was served upon the petitioner asking him as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for his act of gross misconduct and insubordination. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted his reply dated 06.06.2023 against the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted his reply dated 06.06.2023 against the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 14.06.2023 by which the suspension of the petitioner was revoked with immediate effect and upon revocation of the suspension, an order dated 16.03.2023 was passed issued, by which, the petitioner was transferred and posted in the Office of the Munsiff, Kaliabor, Nagaon in the interest of public service and exigency of work. It was further mentioned that the disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 issued the charge sheet dated 30.06.2023, initiating a major penalty proceedings under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 (for short, Rules of 1964) against the petitioner. The charge sheet contained 4(four) articles of charges. The charges leveled against the petitioner were as follow: “ Charges 1. That while you were discharging duty as Computer Typists in the officer of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.3, Nagaon, you handled the case records of criminal cases instead of the Bench Assistant, who is the authorized person, and fixed dates. While doing so, you gave very short dates in Special NDPS Case No.191/2022 fixing the case for evidences, which is not normally done in other cases. 2. That, as per complaint received (copy attached), you, in lieu of money, fixed such short dates in that case within a time gap of 5-7 days and summoned related/interested witnesses of the accused. IT is seen from CIS that generally under trial prisoners; cases, dates are fixed within 15-30 days which was not done in Special NDPS Case No.19/2022. 3. That, you, not being authorized to issue summons to the witnesses, issued summons to the witnesses in that case and other criminal cases, too. 4. That, on 14.12.2022, you handled the case records of Special NDPS Case No.191/2022, and types the order as dictated and put up before the learned Presiding Officer for signature. In the said order, you overwrote the next dates (in three places) after signature of the presiding officer, without permission or countersign of the Presiding Officer altering the next date fixed and fixing the case on 19.12.2022 i.e. within a time-gap of 5 (five) days. Thereafter, you issued summons to the witnesses without authority.” 12. In the said order, you overwrote the next dates (in three places) after signature of the presiding officer, without permission or countersign of the Presiding Officer altering the next date fixed and fixing the case on 19.12.2022 i.e. within a time-gap of 5 (five) days. Thereafter, you issued summons to the witnesses without authority.” 12. It is further seen from the affidavit-in-opposition that a preliminary objection was taken as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that mere issuance of a charge sheet does not give rise to a cause of action for challenging the same by instituting a writ proceedings. 13. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was also mentioned that the Department of Personnel and Trainings OM’s dated 08.10.2018 and 18.10.2013 were not applicable in the case of a petitioner, whose services were guided by the Assam District & Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 read with the Rules of 1964. It was mentioned that the said office memorandums were only applicable in case of the employees of the Government of India. 14. The judgment so relied upon by the petitioner as enclosed to the writ petition was also stated to be not applicable in the facts of the instant case. Further to that, the reference made in the writ petition to the letter dated 27.03.2017 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) was stated to be applicable to judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary directly under the control of the Gauhati High Court and not the Ministerial Staff of the subordinate judiciary who were under the control and supervision of the District Judge of the concerned district. 15. It was categorically mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition that the challenge to the charge sheet relying on the anonymous complaints was totally misplaced because the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was issued after a full-fledged preliminary enquiry, wherein the allegations were found to be worthy of a regular enquiry to maintain the discipline amongst the employees in the subordinate judiciary. 16. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the petitioner on 25.06.2024, wherein it was mentioned that the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition had tried to bring on record some reports of the ACR Review Committee and the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner which were neither a part of the impugned show cause notice nor the impugned Memorandum of Charges. It was mentioned that in order to digress from the issues involved in the writ petition, such action had been resorted to. It was further mentioned that the petitioner had been sought to be victimized on the basis of two anonymous complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023. It was mentioned that the two anonymous complaints were the basis for a preliminary enquiry, which was not legally permissible and further on the basis of such a preliminary enquiry report dated 25.04.2023, the impugned show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 and the impugned charge sheet dated 30.06.2023 could not have been issued to the petitioner. The applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 to the employees of the State of Assam having been already affirmed by way of a judicial pronouncement in Varshaty Das Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2021) 5 GLR 236 , the respondents cannot deny the application of the said Office Memorandum to the case of the petitioner. It was further mentioned that the petitioner being an employee of the State Government, the said office memorandum dated 18.10.2013 would also be applicable, which casts a bar on acting upon anonymous complaint. It was also mentioned that since the impugned show cause notice and the subsequent charge sheet clearly reflect that they have been issued on the basis of anonymous complaints in question, the attempt on the part of the respondents to improve the case by relying on the preliminary enquiry report does not hold water and is likely to be negated. In addition to that, the petitioner had reiterated his stand in the writ petition and negated the statements and allegations made against him. 17. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 18. Mr. KN Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that purely on the basis of anonymous complaints there cannot be initiation of any show cause proceedings or any departmental proceedings and the said aspect of the matter would be clear from the Office Memorandums dated 18.10.2013 and 08.10.2018 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, which is also applicable for the employees under the State of Assam. He further referred to the communication issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) Gauhati High Court dated 27.03.2017, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that anonymous complaints making allegations against members of the Subordinate Judiciary in the State should not be entertained and no action should be taken thereon, unless it is accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and or verifiable materials to substantiate the allegations made therein. He, therefore, submitted that merely on the basis of anonymous complaints neither the show cause proceedings nor the charge sheet can sustain the scrutiny of law. 19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further referred to the Manual of departmental proceedings of the employees’ under the State of Assam and, more particularly, Clause 1.3 of Chapter-I, which deals with the scrutiny and disposal of anonymous applications. He submitted that a perusal of Clause 1.3 would show that anonymous applications are to be filed without taking any actions thereon, except where specific instances capable of verification are mentioned and are of sufficient public importance are to be investigated. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the very stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit goes contrary to the show cause notice as well as in the Memorandum of Charges inasmuch as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition that the anonymous complaints is not the basis but a preliminary enquiry formed the basis of the show cause proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the show cause proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings could not have proceeded merely on the basis of anonymous complaint as had been also held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Varshaty Das (supra). 20. Mr. K.N.Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Varshaty Das (supra) , the respondent authorities could not have proceeded merely on the basis of the anonymous complaints inasmuch as anonymous complaint cannot be the basis for the purpose of initiating any show cause proceedings or even a departmental proceedings. He submitted that both the show cause notice as well as the charge sheet do not disclose anything about any preliminary enquiry which is now sought to be supplemented by way of an affidavit-in-opposition. He submitted that both the show cause notice as well as the charge sheet do not disclose anything about any preliminary enquiry which is now sought to be supplemented by way of an affidavit-in-opposition. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and also the judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others , reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 , the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the basis on which the proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings have been initiated as mentioned in the show cause notice as well as the Memorandum of Charges cannot be further supplemented by way of an affidavit. 21. Per contra, Mr. HK Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court had submitted that the show cause proceedings as well as the Memorandum of Charge are not only based upon the anonymous complaints. He submitted that pursuant to the receipt of the anonymous complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023 pertaining to a specific case being Special NDPS Case No. 191/2022, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, (POCSO) Nagaon and a preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 25.04.2023. The Learned counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer, after collecting all the materials and recording the statements of the witnesses derived conclusion that on 14.03.2022, the petitioner was present and handled the case records of Special NDPS Case No. 191/2022. He submitted that from the enquiry, it further revealed that the petitioner had typed out the order sheet, fixed the dates and put up the same for signature before the learned Presiding Officer. Further to that, from the preliminary enquiry, it also came to light that there was overwriting in the order sheet against the next date fixed on three occasions in the order dated 14.12.2022, which did not bear the initials of the Presiding Officer. It was further found on the basis of the said enquiry that a petitioner was involved in tampering of the judicial records. It is on the basis of the said preliminary enquiry, a show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 was served upon the petitioner as to why a disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against him for his act of gross misconduct and insubordination. It is on the basis of the said preliminary enquiry, a show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 was served upon the petitioner as to why a disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against him for his act of gross misconduct and insubordination. Though, the petitioner submitted his reply on 06.06.2023 to the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply for which the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023 was issued against the petitioner. 22. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court further submitted that the Office Memorandums referred to in the writ petition pertains to the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India and the same is not applicable to the present case. He further submitted that the judgment in the case of Varshaty Das (supra) is also not applicable, taking into account that the said judgment was passed on certain concessions being made by the counsel for the respondents therein. He, therefore, submitted that exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage being very limited, this Court ought not to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. 23. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given my anxious consideration to their respective submissions. 24. Annexure-2 to the writ petition are the two anonymous complaints filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Nagaon, Assam and learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023 respectively wherein allegations have been made against the petitioner. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023, it would be seen that both are based upon the said complaints received and there is no mention, whatsoever, as regards that those complaints were verified and certain enquiry or investigation was carried out. Now, therefore, the question arises as to whether merely on the basis of anonymous complaints, the show cause notice dated 22.03.2023 or the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023 could have been issued. 25. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that for the purpose of carrying out any departmental enquiry, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the Rules of 1964 applies. 25. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that for the purpose of carrying out any departmental enquiry, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the Rules of 1964 applies. A perusal of the said Rules and, more particularly, Rule 9 does not in any manner contemplate issuance of a show cause notice prior to initiation of departmental proceedings. However, it is relevant to take note of that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 categorically mandates that no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 shall be passed except after an enquiry held as far as may be in the manner provided in the remaining Sub-Rules of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964 is very pertinent inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority has been obligated to frame definite charges on the basis of allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. In the instant case, it would be seen that from the perusal of the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the charge- sheet dated 30.06.2023 that it is based upon an anonymous complaints. Nothing has been mentioned that any investigation or preliminary enquiry was made on the basis of the allegations which were verified. 26. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the Manual of Departmental Enquiry which stipulates amongst others as to how scrutiny and disposal of anonymous applications are required to be done. Clause 1.3 of the Manual of Departmental Enquiry stipulates that anonymous applications are to be filed without taking any action thereof except when specific instances capable of verifications are mentioned and are of sufficient public importance are to be investigated. The said manual at Clauses 1.4 and 1.5, categorically mentions as to how anonymous complaints are to be dealt with. Clause 1.3 of the Manual of Departmental Enquiry stipulates that anonymous applications are to be filed without taking any action thereof except when specific instances capable of verifications are mentioned and are of sufficient public importance are to be investigated. The said manual at Clauses 1.4 and 1.5, categorically mentions as to how anonymous complaints are to be dealt with. The above provisions would show that merely on the basis of anonymous complaint, without a further act of investigation or enquiry, no action can be taken for initiating any disciplinary proceedings. The reason is not too far to seek inasmuch as anonymous complaints are grievances or accusations filed without revealing the identity of the complainant. The absence of the complainant's personal details, such as name, address or contact information are deliberately omitted. The absence of such details, raises the question of accountability and authenticity, making anonymous complaint challenging for Authorities to address effectively. 27. It is also very relevant to take note of that anonymous complaints are also filed for various reasons including fear of retaliation, personal safety concerns or distrust in the process. Be that as it may, anonymous complaints are often viewed with suspicion under law as they are difficult to investigate or act upon. The primary concerns regarding anonymous complaints are: 1. Lack of accountability- Without knowing the identity of the complainant, it is impossible to verify the truth of the allegations or hold the individual responsible for the false claims. 2. Risk of malicious intent- Anonymous complaints can be filed with a malicious intent intending to harm the reputation or career of the person without any recourse for defence. 3. Potential for unsubstantiated allegations- Since identity is concealed, the Authorities have no means of following up for clarification or additional information. This may lead to filing of vague or unfounded complaints that waste public resources. 28. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India dated 18.10.2013, whereby the procedures have been laid down for handling anonymous and pseudonymous complaints. In the said Office Memorandum, it has been mentioned that no action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints, needs to be simply filed. In the said Office Memorandum, it has been mentioned that no action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints, needs to be simply filed. It is further mentioned that the complaints containing vague allegations could also be filed without verification of identity of the complainant. Further to that, it was mentioned that if a complaint contains verifiable allegations, the Ministry or Department may take cognizance of such complaint with the approval of the Competent Authority to be designated by the Ministry or the Department as per the distribution of work. In such cases, the complaint shall be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning as the case may be. If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder would be sent. After waiting for 15 days after sending the reminder, still nothing is heard, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the Ministry/Department. 29. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Varshaty Das (supra) , wherein at paragraph No. 23, the Coordinate Bench had duly recorded that the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel etc, in the State of Assam not being disputed and rather categorically was admitted by the written instruction dated 09.09.2021. Paragraph 23 of the said Judgment is quoted herein below: 23. The applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel etc. in the State of Assam not being disputed and rather categorically admitted vide a written instruction dated 09.09.2021, there remains no other option than to come to a conclusion that the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings vide the Show Cause Notice dated 03.04.2021 is bad in law in view of the clear guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice could not be a hurdle for this Court to interfere in the proceeding in view of the clear mandate laid down by the Office Memorandum of the Government of India. Further the CVC Circulation No. 12/09/20 fortifes the aforesaid position. 30. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice could not be a hurdle for this Court to interfere in the proceeding in view of the clear mandate laid down by the Office Memorandum of the Government of India. Further the CVC Circulation No. 12/09/20 fortifes the aforesaid position. 30. This Court had also taken note of the fact that the Judgment in the case of Varshaty Das (supra) was pronounced in the year 2021 and subsequent thereto on 28.09.2022 there is another Office Memorandum compiling all previous Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India wherein similar provisions were incorporated. Clause 2 of the said Office Memorandum being relevant is reproduced herein under: “(2).(i). No action is required to be taken on anonymous complaints, which do not carry both name and address of the complainant, irrespective of the nature of allegations and such complaints need to be simply filed. (ii). Complaints containing vague allegations could also be filed without verification of identity of the complainant. (iii). If a complaint contains verifiable allegations, the administrative Ministry/Department may take cognizance of such complaint with the approval of the competent authority to be designated by the Ministry/Department as per their distribution of work. In such cases, the complaint will be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning, as the case may be. If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days after sending the reminder, if still nothing is heard, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the Ministry/Department.” 31. It is further relevant to mention that a further perusal of the Said Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022 would show that the allegations in connection with an anonymous complaint can be verified and upon verification, if there is any substance, appropriate recommendation can be made to the Disciplinary Authority. Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022 is reproduced herein under. “4. Complaints against Secretaries to the Government of India, whether pseudonymous or otherwise, received by the Cabinet Secretariat or the DoP&T or the Prime Minister's office, will be first scrutinized by the Group headed by the Cabinet Secretary. Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022 is reproduced herein under. “4. Complaints against Secretaries to the Government of India, whether pseudonymous or otherwise, received by the Cabinet Secretariat or the DoP&T or the Prime Minister's office, will be first scrutinized by the Group headed by the Cabinet Secretary. The composition of the group shall be as follows: (i) Cabinet Secretary (ii) Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister (iii) Secretary (Coordination) in the Cabinet Secretariat (iv) Secretary, DoP&T, and (v) Secretary, CVC-Observer a) This Group, after reviewing the complaints, would proceed as follows: · If there is no substance in the complaint or the complaint is frivolous in nature, the group would close the complaint and inform the relevant officer from where the complaint was received; · In case the preliminary scrutiny of the complaint indicates that there is some substance in it or there are verifiable allegations, the Group could do one or more of the following: (i) Seek the comments of the Secretary concerned; (ii) Call for the concerned file(s); (iii) Call for the relevant records, including annual property returns, other reports etc. b) Having received appropriate inputs on the complaints, the group will then proceed in the following manner: · In case the records/comments indicate that there is no substance in the complaint, it will be closed. · If after scrutiny, it is felt that there is some substance in the complaint, a view would have to be taken by the group regarding the nature of the investigation called for and an appropriate recommendation made in this regard. · Thereafter, the recommendation would be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, for action as deemed fit. c). The Group constituted will also be looking into the complaints received by the Cabinet Secretary from CVC under the CVC Act or the Public Interest Disclosure Resolution. The CVC shall be kept informed at regular intervals about the status of the scrutiny/review undertaken by the group into complaints forwarded by the CVC.” 32. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of another communication dated 27.03.2017 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Gauhati High Court to all the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Assam and all the Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State of Assam in respect to the procedure while dealing with complaints received against members of the Subordinate Judiciary. It was mentioned that the complaint making allegations against members of the Subordinate Judiciary in the States should not be entertained and no action shall be taken thereon, unless it is accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and/or verifiable materials to substantiate the allegations which have been made out. 33. From the above analysis, it would, therefore, be seen that merely on the basis of an anonymous complaint, without the further act of carrying out any preliminary enquiry or investigation, a disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated inasmuch as an anonymous complaint on its own cannot be relied upon. However, this Court finds it relevant at this stage to observe, that if on the basis of those anonymous complaint which contained various allegations which are verifiable in nature and further relates to serious allegations, it is also the duty of the concerned Authorities to carry out necessary verifications. If upon making out such verifications, such as preliminary enquiry or an investigation, it is found that the said allegations are substantiated, that cannot act as a bar upon the concerned Authorities to initiate the departmental proceedings. As already stated hereinabove, the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023 do not in any manner refer to any further investigation/preliminary enquiry being carried out and merely refers to those anonymous complaints. 34. Under such circumstances, it has to be construed that both the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023 are based on materials which under law cannot be taken into consideration and as such, permitting these departmental proceedings to further proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023, being only based upon the anonymous complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023, the same are required to be interfered with and accordingly this Court sets aside both the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023. (ii) It is seen from the records that pursuant to the complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023, certain preliminary enquiry was carried out and on the basis thereof certain verifiable data could be obtained. (ii) It is seen from the records that pursuant to the complaints dated 02.01.2023 and 03.01.2023, certain preliminary enquiry was carried out and on the basis thereof certain verifiable data could be obtained. Thus, interference to the show cause notice dated 22.05.2023 as well as the Memorandum of Charge dated 30.06.2023 by this Court shall not preclude the concerned respondent authorities, more particularly, the disciplinary authority to take appropriate actions, for initiation of fresh departmental proceedings on the basis of materials substantiated by preliminary enquiry, in terms with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964. (iii). Since during the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner would not insist on the challenge to the Transfer order, this Court has refrained from adjudicating the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order. 35. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.