Central Information Commission
Shri M.L Gouhari vs Ed. Cil on 18 February, 2009
Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00461
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/0344/0560/0656
1013/1043/1109/1146/1411
CIC/OK/C/2007/00735
CIC/OK/A/2008/00044
CIC/OK/C/2008/00015
18 February 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri M.L Gouhari,
A-1/107, Janakpuri,
New Delhi - 110 058.
Name of the Public Authority : Ed. CIL
Background:
Shri M.L. Gouhari of New Delhi had filed a number of RTI-applications with the Public Information Officer, Educational Consultants India Limited, since 5 July 2006, seeking information on various counts such as, copies of file notings and related correspondences leading to the transfer of his son to Bangalore, vigilance report against his son Shri Rajesh Gouhari, Mr. Motwani's visit to Finland and details of representations made to PMO etc., etc. The Appellant also sought information regarding the vigilance case contemplated against his son.
2. The PIO replied to the various letters
3. Not getting any satisfactory reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority in most cases upheld the decision of the PIO and also informed the Appellant that the disciplinary proceedings pending against Shri Rajesh Gouhari was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI-Act.
4. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Central Information Commission with second appeals.
5. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 31 March 2008.
6. Shri N.S. Padmanabhan, GM ( P&A) & PIO, Shri D. Singh, Appellate Authority, Shri Bishwambhar Datt, AM(Per) & APIO and Shri Arunima Dwivedi, Legal Assistant, represented the Respondents.
7. The Appellant, Shri M.L. Gouhari, and his son Shri Rakesh Gouhari were present in person.
Decision:
8. The Appellant in this case is one Shri M.L. Gouhari, the father of Shri Rajesh Gouhari, an employee of Ed.CIL. It may be stated that the basic issues in over 41 RTI-applications/Appeals filed by the Appellant revolves around only three: (i) the transfer of Shri Rajesh Gouhari to another Branch of the Department in Bangalore, (ii) settlement of medical claims preferred by the Appellant's son and (iii) a Vigilance case which the Department launched against Shri Rajesh Gouhari.
9. This Bench in the Commission has already held four or five hearings in the present case. This was due to the fact that even after hearing both the parities four or five items, the Bench was not clear as to the issues involved with contrary statements coming from both the parties and subsequently the Bench had asked both the parties to make their submissions so that the Bench could study them and pass a final Order. This is what is being done now.
10. To recapitulate the first hearing in the case was held on 7 February 2007 and the Order given was that it was obvious to the Bench that the Appellant "had asked for voluminous and varied information from the Department which they found it extremely difficult to collate and supply to him". In fact, the Commission was surprised that the Appellant had asked for vigilance cases against other employees of the Department. In all these cases, however, the Commission ordered for records and documents to be shown to the Appellant. Here, the Respondents made an error: thus, instead of opening up all the records to him as ordered by the Commission, they made a brief of the information desired and provided to the Appellant. The Appellant obviously found this unacceptable. At the same time, the Respondents stated that the files were not being shown to him because of the information asked for related to a third party (the Appellant's son) and they wanted a 'No Objection' Certificate from his son before disclosing all the information to the Appellant. This NOC was never given. In the meantime, the Appellant took the matter to the Court also and besides filed LPA and SLP against the Court's Orders. Referring to this case to the CMD of the Department, the Appellant quoted from the Appellant's application saying: "you may be aware that my son has filed LPA before the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi against the verdict of Hon'ble Single Judge who had passed the immature orders in a hurry with non-application of mind which is totally wrong". The Respondents added that based on these remarks, the Hon'ble High Court in its suo-moto decision issued note of contempt to Shri M.L. Gouhari to show cause as to why he should not be appropriately punished in accordance with the provision of the Contempt of Court Act. The Respondents also produced before this Bench the documents in which the Appellant had continued to use the derogatory and uncharitable language in all his communication adding that even his son had used a similar kind of language. In what was the second hearing in the case before this Bench, the Respondents clarified that after the Commission's orders, the Appellant was provided a chance to inspect the documents and indicate the number of pages which he required from the personal file of his son, Shri Rajesh Gouhari. The Appellant did not avail of this opportunity. Instead, he levelled charges against the officials. In the Order relating to the second hearing, this Bench observed: "the Commission warns the Appellant not to use such language or level allegations without any basis in future, failing which the matter would be viewed very seriously by the Commission". The Respondents, during the hearing, also apprised the Commission that the Appellant had filed several RTI-applications and in some cases, the information sought bordered on the absurd. The Commission examined the documents and found that it was indeed so. The Act (RTI) is meant to bring about transparency and accountability in administration to contain corruption, and the Commission appeals to the Appellant not to misuse the RTI-Act to settle personal scores". This latter remark was made in the light of the fact that the Appellant filed RTI-applications which related to personal matters against the official who was handling his case and even went to the extent of filing an RTI- application regarding his wife's service in a College.
11. During one of the hearings, the concerned official practically broke down and now has opted out of the Department and taken up another job. Indeed, this may be considered as one of the worst cases where an RTI- applicant has misused the Act to harass the officials of a Department.
12. The Commission after going through the entire case and also the submissions made by both the parties orders as follows:
(i) One of the basic issues raised in all these RTI-applications is the case of the medical bill submitted by the Appellant's son in which he has alleged some irregularities. The Respondents may make a brief of the case and provide it to the Applicant;
(ii) As for the transfer of Shri Rajesh Gouhari to Bangalore, the Respondents have clarified that he has been brought back to Delhi and given an impression to the Commission that this was to save themselves from further harassment and abuses from the Appellant.
No action is required on this score; and
(iii) As for the vigilance case, the Commission faced with contradictory statements from the Appellant and the Respondents with the Respondents saying that a vigilance case had been launched against the Appellant's son and the Appellant maintaining that no such vigilance case had started, the Respondents may provide photocopies of the notings from the file to establish their stand that the Vigilance has indeed taken up the case against the Appellant's son.
13. Looking into the case as a whole, the Commission is surprised that an employee of a Department, no matter how aggrieved he is with the Department, instead of taking up the issues in a proper manner with the Department itself or alternatively filing RTI-applications for the background of the case should have asked his aged father to resort to RTI-applications. The Commission while upholding the right of the Appellant to file RTI-applications regarding his son, yet it would be appropriate if the employee concerned had approached authorities to RTI-applications. This would have probably avoided all the confusion that has arisen in the case. Finally, the Commission has rejected a number of applications on the ground that intemperate, abusing and unparliamentary language has been used in the communications of the Appellant. This case clearly falls into that category. However, the Commission has taken a lenient view, but it is made clear that while abiding with the Commission's orders regarding points 1 & 3 above, the Respondents may yet come to the Commission in case the Appellant continues to use objectionable language and the Commission may then adjudicate on whether the case should be dismissed or be continued.
14. The cases are thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian) Assistant Registrar Cc:
1. Shri M.L. Gouhari, A-1/107, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058
2. The Public Information Officer, Educational Consultants India Ltd., Ed. CIL House, 18A, Sector 16A, Noida-201301
3. Shri D. Singh, Appellate Authority, Educational Consultants India Ltd., Ed. CIL House, 18A, Sector 16A, Noida-201301
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC