The question presents a scenario involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) receiving a complaint about an officer accepting bribes for performing duties they are obligated to do. Two potential courses of action are proposed, and we need to determine which is appropriate.

Analyzing the CBI Complaint Scenario

The core issue is an allegation of corruption against a public servant. The CBI, as a premier investigative agency, is tasked with looking into such serious matters. The goal is to ensure accountability and uphold the integrity of public office.

Evaluating Course of Action I: Catching Red-Handed

Course of Action I suggests that the CBI should attempt to catch the officer red-handed and then take strict action. This is a direct and proactive approach.

• Evidence Gathering: Catching someone red-handed provides the strongest possible evidence of the alleged wrongdoing. It directly links the officer to the act of taking a bribe.
• Preventing Further Corruption: Immediately apprehending the officer prevents them from continuing the corrupt practice and potentially harming more citizens or undermining public trust.
• Deterrence: Swift and decisive action serves as a deterrent to other officials who might consider engaging in similar corrupt activities.

This course of action aligns with standard investigative procedures for bribery cases, focusing on securing immediate proof and halting the offense.

Evaluating Course of Action II: Waiting for More Complaints

Course of Action II proposes waiting for additional complaints regarding the officer before taking action. Let's analyze this approach:

• Risk of Evidence Loss: Waiting can allow the corrupt officer to destroy evidence, coordinate with accomplices, or become more cautious, making it harder to catch them later.
• Continued Malpractice: While waiting, the officer continues to engage in corrupt activities, causing ongoing harm and eroding public confidence.
• Delayed Justice: Justice is delayed for those who might have already been affected by the officer's actions. It also delays accountability.
• Confirmation Bias: While corroboration is important, waiting solely for *more* complaints without initiating an inquiry based on the *initial* complaint can be inefficient and risky. The first complaint itself might be sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Therefore, waiting indefinitely for more complaints is generally not the most effective or appropriate first step when a concrete allegation is received.

Conclusion on Appropriate Action

Based on the analysis, Course of Action I is the most appropriate response. It focuses on securing concrete evidence immediately and stopping the ongoing corrupt practice. While further investigation might follow after the initial apprehension, taking immediate steps to catch the officer red-handed is a logical and effective first move.