WE HAVE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE FROM AN OFFICER REGARDING A COMPLAINT FROM ANOTHER VISITOR TO OUR WEBSITE. IN THE SIPIRIT OF FAIRNESS TO ALL OF OUR VISITOR, WE ARE PUBLISHING THIS LETTER FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION. WE HOPE THAT ACCUSER WILL BE DEPEND HIS CLAIM. Sir, I am Pronab Mohanty, an IPS Officer who was posted in CBI till recently and currently serving on promotion as DIG in Karnataka. I have served in the Police for more than 16 years with a record of spotless conduct and integrity. I am a regular visitor to your website and was shocked to see an explicitly false and biased complaint against me posted in your website by an individual facing serious charges of corruption in the CBI special court. The text of the complaint is produced below for reference. Ref No. 2132010 "S.P of Fraud catching agency makes fraud.He joined hands with corrupt senior officers like Mr. A.Ray, the then Director(p&a)and mafias of the society to divert me from WHISTLE BLOWER'S ROLE.This role of mine have saved Nalco's Exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees but annoyed my seniors Mr. A.Ray and Mr. P.R DASGUPTA.C.B.I S.P raided my house on a special drive day without proper verification,rather believed forgery documents created by my seniors with the help of mafias.After raid he wanted to justify by hook or crook adopting three major worstever manipulations like exclusion of my Doctor wife's income from Nalco(Rs25lakhs), inclusion of forged money receipts of a miscreant worth 14 lakhs as expenditure,abrupt placement of household expenditure as 15 lakhs out of net income of 23 lakhs and few more like exclusion of some loals and advances because he could not find assets worth more than 19 lakhs from Engineer-D0ctor couple of a P.S.U having more than 15 years of service sourced Income. Recommended NALCO to initiate major disciplenary proceedings against me and my wife.He blackmailed the then C.M.D I/C (who was in vigilance problem then)to sanction the prosecution against me . Investigation against this unscrupulous S.P HAS BEEN DONE BASED ON MY COMPLAINTS WITH PROOFS.Because my case has been pushed to the graveyard of lethargic Judiciary of our Nation, I will be retiring from the service by the time justice reached me.The corrupt S.P has succeded in his mission of keeping me away from corruption prevention activities by making me busy in such unwarranted activities. Though C.V.C has appreciated my role but I am yet to get normalcy in my life. For all this malicious role of S.P is responsible.If people fighting against corruption are harassed in such manner, probably we will be a leading corrupt Nation occupying no.1 in the World with in no time." I have great regard for the work being done by the website and have a few things to say on the matter. The complainant is presumably one Mr Padhi of NALCO against whom CBI registered a case of amassing disproportionate assets in 2005 and subsequently chargesheeted the same after establishing a prima facie case through rigorous investigation. After investigation due sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Officer competent to afford sanction as per the desired provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As the complainant has rightly stated I was the SP at the CBI Branch at the time. It is common knowledge that the CBI which is widely recognized for conducting professional investigations scrutinises facts and documents very closely both before and during the investigations. Usually investigations are done by Investigating Officers (also called IOs) of the rank of Inspectors or Deputy Supdt. Of Police (DySP). The complainant's contention that I investigated the case being an SP is absolutely baseless. An Inspector had done the investigation. Similarly, the case against Mr Padhi was confirmed at the competent levels of CBI before the FIR was registered as per due procedure. Again the SP is not the deciding authority in such cases. During investigation, especially in cases of Disproportionate Asset (or DA cases as these are termed) levels of supervision are fairly intensive and regular progress reports are sent to senior officers. After investigation the IO submits his findings with recommendations to either prosecute the Accused Officer or to close investigation. Following the IO's report the case is reviewed by the Legal Officer. Then the SP takes a look at the opinions and takes a stand. After the SP the Deputy Legal Advisor, the DIG CBI and occasionally the Additional Legal Advisor and the Joint Director (an IG rank officer) scrutinise the investigation findings and the various opinions expressed at different levels. The case goes for prosecution only if the opinion up and down the line is positive. An SP is not the person that has the capacity to decide alone as the complainant has malafidely alleged. There are any number of instances in the CBI where the SP's opinions are not accepted. Following investigation CBI approaches the Prosecution Sanctioning authority (in the instant case the then CMD of NALCO) seeking sanction to prosecute the accused officer. It is entirely left to the discretion of the sanctioning authority to allow the sanction or to reject it. I am personally surprised at the complainant's assertion that the sanctioning authority was "blackmailed" ( a deeply offensive and malicious term) by me in anyway. Sanction was given in his case based on merits of the incriminating facts against the accused. I shall not be going into the specific facts of his case as the matter is subjudice(it is seen from the complaint posted by the complainant that he has quoted some specific figures). Cases booked and investigated by the CBI are usually comprehensive and a lot of thinking goes into it. This is borne out by the superlative figures of conviction obtained by the CBI and the the feelings of trust it inspires in the common Indian citizen. Moreover, the CBI is a 70 year old organization and its procedures have been moulded through this long period of dedicated service. The complainant's rantings will not change this fact. If he had an axe to grind against me as the SP he was free to approach the higher officers with his explanations (if he had any at all). The complainant's description of the judiciary as a "graveyard" and "lethargic" is stunning, defamatory and amounts to abject contempt of court. The Indian Judiciary is a respected institution and the CBI has a perfect record in the courts of law. If Mr Padhi has anything to comment on the merits or de merits of his case he may well do so in the court of law. I can't be dubbed as a "corrupt" or "fraud" SP for doing my job sincerely and definitely not by an accused public servant facing proven charges of corruption himself in a CBI special court. The words used by him are deeply demeaning and defamatory. Under the guise of being a "whistle blower" he is trying to sabotage the process of law. I am justifiably proud of having served in an august body like the CBI and am doubly proud that I could contribute my mite to the fight against corruption by standing up and refusing to be browbeaten by the corrupt and the powerful. The facts stated by me are easily verifiable. I leave the issue to your good judgement whether or not the course of action taken by me and CBI are correct or otherwise. If you feel my rejoinder to be correct I hope the concerned post will be removed. I'm available for any clarifications that might be required. Sincere regards, Pronab Mohanty.