Central Information Commission
Man Mohan Pandey vs Central Vigilance Commission on 24 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: As per Annexure
Man Mohan Pandey ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTT Cell, Satarkta Bhawan,
GPO Complex, Block A, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
CPIO,
M/o Defence,
RTI Cell, Room No. 143,
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg,
New Delhi-110011.
CPIO,
Department of Defence Production,
Room No. 96, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
CPIO,
Bharat Electronics Limited,
RT1 Cell, Nagavara, Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore-560045, Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 21/07/2023
Date of Decision : 21/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
1
Note: The instant appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the
same subject matter and similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI(s) application filed on : 08/11/2022; 27/12/2022; 25/10/2022;
29/11/2022;
CPIO replied on : 02/12/2022; 10/01/2023; 16/01/2023;
16/11/2022; 27/12/2022; 28/12/2022
First appeal filed on : 05/12/2022; 06/02/2023; 18/11/2022;
29/12/2022; 31/12/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 02/01/2023; 01/03/2023; 05/12/2022;
24/01/2023; 23/01/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/644434
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2022 seeking the following information:-2 3
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.12.2022 referring to 50 complaints and stated as under:-
"It is intimated that your complaints has been sent to Bharat Electronics Ltd, and Ministry of Defence, necessary for necessary action, electronically. The Commission does not expect any complaints forwarded for necessary action, the concerned Authority is expected to take necessary action in the matter. You may take up the matter with concerned Authority for (antler information. Your RTI application is being transferred to CVO, Bharat Electronics Ltd, CVO, Wo Defence, and CVO, Department of Defence Production us 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for appropriate action.
4. Complaints No. 134142f2029Vig-9, 170201/2021/Vig-9 and 177400/2021/vig-9 have been filed in the Commission in accordance with Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission. available on CVC website i.e. www cvs.nic.in."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.12.2022. FAA's order, dated 26.12.2023 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI Application in view of the First Appeal contentions and to pass a speaking order.
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a reply dated 10.01.2023 reiterating the reply of 02.12.2022.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"Through my RTI, I had asked the CPIO CVC for the following information: Status of each of the Complaints which had been marked to CVO-BEL since BEL had claimed that all complaints (except two) had been closed by CVO-BEL whereas all the complaints were shown as Open in the CVC Portal. This was against the Complaint Handling Policy of CVC which states that all complaints marked to the CVOs are to be closed by them in the CVC Portal within one month (if 4 no action is envisaged). I had also asked CVC to share with me the document/noting of CVO- BEL with respect to closing of the complaints (since BEL had claimed the noting to be "Confidential") The filing of the FIR ref: RC2172022A0009 dated 07-12-2022 has validated the fact that the Ex-CMD BEL and other high officials of BEL indulged in corruption in the implementation of the IACCS project (a fact which was vehemently denied by CMD-BEL and no action was taken on the same by CVC).
However the CPIO CVC has not given any information as asked for my me but has only listed the various CVC complaints and only repeated what is already available at the CVC site (and has been put by me in the RTI) regarding them been forwarded to CVO-BEL. I had already included the status of 55 complaints as was visible in the CVC site and hence the information shared by the CPIO is totally worthless. The CPIO had also forwarded the complaint to CVOMOD, CVO-DDP and CVO-BEL. This again was a totally wasteful exercise since the information asked by me was with respect to information available with CVC. The MOD, DDP and BEL have replied back to the RTI forwarded by CVC by accepting that the information is to be given by CVC only since none of the information asked for in the RTI is with BEL, MOD or DDP."
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/604594 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Please refer to the 55 Complaints as registered in the CVC Paul with respect to Corruption Cartel existing between DPSUs, DRDO and Private vendors which was exposed by me) which has led to the CMD.BEL targeting me by putting al false charges on me and dismissing me from service by resorting to tampered documents and blatant lies to generate all false evidences.
Also please refer the RTI reply given by BEL Our Complaints met all the necessary requirements for complaints to be taken up by CVC but they were not taken up by CVC and only marked to CV0.11F1. or CVO.MOD for necessary action (if required). As per RTI Act 2005 please share with me the following information:
1.0 One of the criteria defined in the CVC Circular says that the complaints should be against Board Level Members of Public Sector Units. Our complaints were against Board level Members of BEL hence please conform to us whether this criterion as required by CVC was met Or not in our complaints.5
2.0 The CVC Circular says that the complaints are to be lodged by addressing the written communication/letter directly to the Commission or on Commission's portal www.portal.cvc.gov.in. We had lodged all complaints in the CVC Portal, hence please confirm that this criterion required by CVC was met or not in our complaints.
3.0 The CVC Circular defines that the complaints should be against officials and organizations within the jurisdiction of the Commission and contained allegations of corruption. If it is so than as per CVC criterion they are to be Investigated by the Commission through CBI. Our complaints were against Board level members of BEL and relate to corruption. Hence please confirm that this criterion required by CVC was met or not in our complaints.
4.0 The CVC circular defines that "Once the Commission directs the CBI/CVO to investigate and report on a complaint. a complaint number would be provided to the complainant". Was the complaint number provided to us in line with this CVC criterion or not.
5.0 Tho CVC Circular defines that the complaints should be with respect to corruption. Our complaints were with respect to corruption 'mainly IACCS and some other projects also) hence please confirm whether this criterion required by CVC was met in our complaints.
6.0 The CVC Circular defines that the complaints most contain factual details. verifiable fans and related matters. They should not be vague or contain swooping general allegations. Our complaints contained factual details, verifiable facts and related matter only hence please confirm whether they met the CVC Criterion or not.
7.0 The CVC Circular says that Complaint should be addressed directly to the Commission. Complaints should not be marked as a copy to the Commission. Our complaints were addressed to the CVC and hence please confirm whether they mot the CVC criterion or not.
8.0 The CVC Circular says that the "Complaint, which do not niece the above criteria will either be filed or will be referred to the concerned CVO for necessary action". In our Case our complaints met all the criterion defined in the CVC Circular yet they were marked to the CVO-BEL or CVO-MOD for necessary action. Kindly share with us the reasons which have been put up by CVC claiming that our 6 complaints did not meet the criterion of CVC taking them up as complaints to be taken up for investigation by CVC."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.12.2022 stating as under:-
"It is intimated that your complaints has been sent to Bharat Electronics Ltd, and Ministry of Defence, necessary for necessary action, electronically. The Commission does not expect any complaints forwarded for necessary action, the concerned Authority is expected to take necessary action in the matter. You may take up the matter with concerned Authority for (antler information. Your RTI application is being transferred to CVO, Bharat Electronics Ltd, CVO, Wo Defence, and CVO, Department of Defence Production us 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for appropriate action.
Complaints No. 134142f2029Vig-9, 170201/2021/Vig-9 and 177400/2021/vig-9 have been filed in the Commission in accordance with Complaint Handling Policy of the Commission. available on CVC website i.e. www cvs.nic.in."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.12.2022. FAA's order, dated 03.01.2023 is as under:-
"On perusal of the records, it is observed that, RTI applicant has been forwarded by the CPIO to other public authorities. It appears that the requisite information asked for is in the nature of raising query and asking questions/reason as to why Commission has not done certain things, which do not constitute information as defined U/S 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the CPIO is advised to reconsider the RTI application and pass a speaking order wherever information is denied, within 15 days from receipt of this order."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a reply dated 10.01.2023 reiterating the reply of 02.12.2022.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"My RTI was with respect to the 55 Complaints put by me in the CVC Portal. All these complaints were with respect to the corruption in the implementation of Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project. All my complaints were either marked to CVO-BEL or to CVO-DDP by the CVC which was 7 totally against the Complaint handling Policy of the CVC which has been displayed on the official website of CVC.
On my RTI (CVCOM/R/E/22/00735 dated 29-11-2022), I had asked specifically about by complaint to CVC with respect to complaint against CVO-BEL which had been forwarded to CVO-BEL for action, it was informed that the reason of forwarding the complaint cannot be shared with me since the decision was processed in the coordination branch of CVC and the decisions taken by the coordination branch are "Confidential" and cannot be shared. It is really surprising that an organization whose very foundation is based on "Transparency" and "Accountability" and which preaches all government Organizations to be transparent (as it is the only way to fight corruption) is themselves hiding behind "Confidentiality" to hide corruption in Rs 7900 Crores IACCS Project.
The Complaint handling policy which is displayed in the official website of CVC defines how the various complaints are handled by the CVC. It defines and lists the various criterion considered by CVC for taking up the Complaints for investigation. Only if these criterions are not met the complaint is sent to the concerned CVO or is filed by CVC. In my RTI complaint I had brought out how all my complaints met all the criterion defined by the "Complaint Handling Policy" yet they were sent to the CVO-BEL or CVO-DDP. In my RTI application I had asked for "Kindly share with us the reasons which have been put up by CVC claiming that our complaints did not meet the criterion of CVC taking them up as complaints to be taken up for investigation by CVC".
This is clearly "Information" as defined by the RTI Act 2005 as it has to be a part of the part of the "record", "document" "Memos" "Circulars", "Orders" "report" or "Paper" through which the decision would have been taken by the CVC that my complaints do not qualify for being taking up for investigation and hence are to be marked to the CVO of the Organization for necessary action, if required.
The decision taken for the CVC for not forwarding my complaints for an enquiry by the CBI or any other investigating agency was clearly proven to be wrong/misplaced since on my appeal to the honorable "Prime Minister" of the country the enquiry as asked for by me in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS Project (which was rejected by the CVC) was given to the CBI. The CBI after doing Preliminary Enquiry has filed a FIR Ref: RC2172022A0009 dated 07-12-2022 against Ex- CMD-BEL and other senior officers of BEL for indulging in corruption during implementation of the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project. The fact, as acknowledged by the then Secretary (CVC), Mr Anindo Majumdar on 4th September 2020, the whole Commission was "Influenced" by the then CMD-BEL, Mr. M.V. Gowtama due to which no action was taken on my complaints is proven to be true."
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/606172 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2022 seeking the following information:-8 9 10
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.12.2022 stating as under:-
"On perusal of the records, it is observed that the details sought by the RTI Appellant has been provided by the CPIO partially. Some of the requisite information asked for appear to be in the nature of raising query and asking question as to why Commission has not done certain things, which do not constitute information as defined 2 (0 of the RTI Act, 2005. However, there are some of the requisite information which may be provided to the Appellant. Hence, the CPIO is advised to reconsider the RTI Application and pass a speaking order wherever information is denied, within 15 days from receipt of this order."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a reply dated 10.01.2023 reiterating the reply of 02.12.2022.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on similar lines as mentioned above under File No.CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/604594.11
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/617092 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2022 seeking the following information:-12 13
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.01.2023 stating as under:-
"Please refer to your on line RTI application dated 27.12.2022 received in the Commission on the above subject.
Reply has already been forwarded by the Commission to you vide its RTI letter No. CVCOM/R/E/22/00687 dated 02.12.2022.
The same reply may be considered for RTI application dated 27.12.2022."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2023. FAA's order, dated 01.03.2023 is as under:-
"On perusal of the records available, the CPIO is advised to reconsider the RTI application of the appellant dated 27.12.2022 and dispose it appropriately as per the extant provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 15 days from the receipt of this order."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a reply on 14.02.2023 stating as under:14
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"The CPIO who initially felt that he had already answered my RTI query vide answering to my RTI ref: 00687 dated 01-12-2022 later decided that all the information asked by me vide Sl no-1 to 8 were related to "the case under investigation" and related to "matter which is sub- judice". However, when the Appellate Authority instructed him to give a proper reply to my RTI query the CPIO responded by claiming that Sl no-3 and 4 are related to matter which is under investigation and also sub-judice and rest of the Sl nos are related to the CVC complaint handling policy which is in public domain.
The actual fact is that Sl no-3 and 4 are in relation to involvement of CMD-BEL in corruption carried out in Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project and his illegally targeting me and dismissing me from service (since my investigation had brought out this corruption). None of this is under investigation or is sub-judice. As per various CIC judgements, it has been repeatedly brought out that there is no restriction of sharing information with respect to sub-judice matters until and unless it has been specifically debarred by the Court. Hence the stand taken by the CPIO is totally wrong.
For Sl no 1,2,5,6,7 and 8, I had asked information with respect to the decisions taken by CVC in complete violation to the Complaint Handling Policy which has been uploaded in the CVC site. The CPIO could have answered in "Yes" and "No" with respect to whether the action taken by CVC on my complaints was as per "Complaint handling policy of CVC" as uploaded in the CVC site. This has not been done since it is cear that all the decisions taken were against the CVC Policy."
File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/600907 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2022 seeking information as under:15
As per RTI Act please share with me the following "information":
1. Did BEL make a reference of the case to CVC as claimed by BEL in the LPA in the double bench of Delhi High Court?
2. If "Yes" then please share the reference documents as shared by BEL with CVC.
3. The Disciplinary Enquiry which was stopped by BEL in September 2019 was restarted by BEL in January 2020. Did CVC give clearance to BEL for restarting the Disciplinary Enquiry?16
4. If "Yes" then please share the whole correspondence between CVC and BEL with regards to the case as referred to by BEL in the LPA.
5. Please share all correspondence which happened between CVC and BEL with respect to corruption reported by CVO-BEL in his Vigilance report.
6. Also share all correspondence between CVC and BEL with respect to the illegal charge sheet put on him and his illegal dismissal by BEL (If there was any correspondence with respect to the First Stage Advice with respect to the Disciplinary Enquiry against him the same may also be shared).
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.11.2022 stating as under:
"It is seen that the matter/case has not reached a logical conclusion, hence information is denied under 8(i) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022. FAA's order dated 05.12.2022 stating as under:-
"The CPIO is directed to reconsider the RTI application in light of the issues raised by the appellant and pass a speaking order".
Subsequently, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 21.12.2022 stating as under:-
"It is seen that the matter pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against the three officers of BEL including you is still under consideration in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the matter pertaining to irregularities in the implementation of IACCS project by BEL is being investigated by CBI. As the matter has not reached a logical conclusion, hence information was denied under 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"The CBI had already filed a FIR against ex-CMD BEL and other officers for carrying on gross violations in implementation of IACCS Project. The CMD-BEL has already dismissed me from service after carrying out a biased one-sided Disciplinary Enquiry without considering any of my defense documents).
Although the Disciplinary Enquiry is not sub-judice, the CIC rules do not prohibit sharing of information with respect to sub-judice cases until and unless it is "information which has been expressly forbidden by any court or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court". The "Information" sought by me is neither forbidden by any court or tribunal nor does it constitute contempt of court."17
File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/617301 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2022 seeking the following information:
1. Please provide me the noting/decision taken by CVC for not considering my complaint ref: 202005/2022 to be taken up for investigation even though it met all the nine-criterion defined in the "Complaint handling policy" as published by CVC on its website for being taken up for investigation by CVS through CBI/CVO.
2. Why was a complaint against CVO-BEL sent to CVO-BEL for "Necessary action"
even though it defies the "Principle of Natural Justice" by making the accused to become his own Judge?
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.12.2022 stating as under:
1. Since the Complaint was against CVO-BEL, the same was processed in Coordination Branch of CVC. The file noting of Coordination Branch cannot be shared as the matter is treated as confidential.
2. Information sought does not come under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Hence, no information can be provided.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2022. FAA's order dated 24.01.2023 stating as under:-
"On perusal of records, the CPIO is advised to re-examine the issue raised in the RTI application/appeal made to FAA and take appropriate action under intimation to RTI applicant".
Subsequently, the CPIO provided a reply on 27.02.2023 stating that the case is under investigation and the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"The information asked was with respect to noncompliance of the Complaint handling policy of CVC for complaints put by me against CMD-BEL, Directors and CVO-BEL, hence the reply given by the CPIO was not at all in line with the information asked for..."18
File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/617485 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2022 seeking the following information:
1. Was the advance copy of the CVO report dated 29.03.2019 received by CVC (which is required as per CVC norms if executives above E8 level are indicated in the CVO report). In case of CVO Vigilance report for DS software advance copy was sent to CVC by CVO. Similarly, the report dated 29.03.2019 was also marked (as NOO) by CVO-BEL to CVC.
2. If advance copy was not sent to CVC, then when the copy of the report sent to CVC and by whom. What action was taken by CVC for violation of CVC Norms of not sending the advance copy? The final CVO report was received in the office of CMD-BEL only on 02-02-2019 (three days after it was signed by CVO-BEL).
3. Was the CVO report dated 29.03.2019 received by CVC, signed by the CVO-BEL on each page (by putting his initials in each page as was confirmed by CVO-BEL).
4. The final CVO report was in variance with the "Draft" report shared one day before the final report was released. Did CVC confirm from the then CVO-BEL who had made the report (he was at that time posted to his parent cadre in Bihar). The draft report was only marked to CMD but the report which was distributed was marked to CMD, D-OU, SrDGM(VIG/NU) and the investigation officer. Please confirm whether there is any rule/circular from the CVC which defines that the Vigilance report is to be marked to only the CMD.
5. Dis the Annexure "D" and Annexure "E" of the CVO Vigilance report shared with CVC or not. The same were not distributed by CVO office to SrDGM (VIG/NU) and the Investigation Officer.
6. Did the CVO-BEL office at any time shared with CVC the letter dated 18-07-2018 making him the investigating officer.
7. The Original letter dated 18-07-2018 issued by CVO-BEL making him the investigating officer had an annexure having 40 points defining the scope for the investigation. The same letter shown to him by CBI was tampered with by CMD-
BEL and had only 37 points. Please confirm if the letter was shared with CVC. If shared please confirm how many points were there in Annexure to the letter shared by BEL with CVC. In the tampered letter sent by BEL to CBI Sl. No 2, 38 and 39 were removed. Please confirm whether the same was done with the letter (if shared) with CVC.
198. As per CVC norms is the tampering of the original letter issued by CVO-BEl making me the Investigating officer a criminal Offence. Is the tampering of the CVO Vigilance report a criminal offence?
9. Did the CVC at any time discuss the final CVO report with Manager/CO/VIG Mr. Solomon Paulraj (who made the final CVO report in consultation with SrDGM/VIG/NU Mr. R.K.Goyal and Mr. Summet Krishna).
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.12.2022 stating as under:
1. Commission has received copy of letter dated 29.03.2019 signed by CVO,BEL
2. CMD/BEL had forwarded the letter of CVO/BEL to the Commission vide letter dated 29.05.2019.
3. The Copy of CVO report available on file, does not carry signature of CVO, BEL on each page.
4. There is no such guideline.
5. Same are not available on file.
6. Yes.
7. Letter dated 18.07.2018 from BEL has been received and has 40 points.
8. No comments.
9. No. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2022. FAA's order dated 23.01.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"In my query whether the advance copy of the CVO report was received by CVC (and whether it is mandatory for sending the advance copy of CVO report to CVC if E-VIII or above officers are indicted in the report) has not been answered by the CPIO. He only mentions that the report was received by CVC. Kindly instruct CPIO to give a specific information with respect to these two queries.
The CPIO has not given any information to my query whether any action was taken by CVC for violation of CVC norms by not marking the advance copy of CVO report to CVC. Although the CPIO has informed that the Vigilance report dated 29-03-2019 was marked to CVC by CMD- BEL on 29-05-2019 (that is after I was charge sheeted and I put up a complaint to the CVC regarding the vindictive action taken by CMD- BEL against me since I had brought out this corruption in which CMD was himself involved).
The CPIO did not respond to my query regarding the final CVO Vigilance report being in variance to the draft report (the draft report was sent by me as part of the RTI). The CPIO did not comment on the fact that the Letter issued to me by CVO-BEL making me the Investigating Authority (submitted by CMD-BEL or CVO-BEL to the CBI was tampered with) was a criminal offence as per CVC norms (since the CVOBEL is a representative of CVC)."20
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.1: Dhananjay Kumar Ranjan, Director & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.2: Bhupesh Pillai, CPIO present through intra-video conference. Respondent No.3: Praveen, US & CPIO(Vig.) along with Gokul Nagarkoti, FAA present through intra-video conference.
Respondent No.4: Venkat Ramaiya, Sr. DGM & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant briefly narrated the factual background of the instant RTI Applications and stated that the sum and substance of these RTI Applications is to access the records based on which CVC decided to forward his complaints to CVO- BEL. For the sake of brevity, the factual background may be gathered from the contents extracted in the preface to the RTI Application referred in File No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/600907 above. Similarly, for the sake of clarity, the common reference points mentioned in almost all of the above referred cases are reproduced hereunder:
"1.0 My being made the Investigating Officer by CVO-BEL to investigate Corruption reported in implementation of IACCS project by BEL. My submitting report on 03-10- 2018 and the CVO-BEL submitting his final Vigilance report on 29-03-2019 brining out that BEL "had violated MoF, GFR, CVC guidelines" and indulged in "Corrupt practices" with "Criminal intent" violated CVC and BEL guidelines.
2.0 The BEL management charge sheeting me and the full Investigation team with false charge that they had exceeded the mandate given to them and denying that any corruption had taken place and dismissing the Investigation team claiming that the investigation carried out by me was a "Conspiracy to scuttle a project of National importance and to jeopardize National Security".
3.0 On my appeal to PMO, MOD conducting an enquiry and Director/Vigilance/MOD informing me in September'2019, that MOD had cleared the file and instructed BEL to withdraw the Charge Sheet cum suspension order issued to me.
4.0 The CMD-BEL "Influencing" both MOD and CVC by falsely convincing then that no corruption had taken place and my investigation was falsely motivated to jeopardize the Security of the Nation and was based on false inputs.
5.0 My personal appeal being taken up by the honorable Prime Minister (with my getting a call from PMO on 23rd Sept'2021) which led to the PMO instructing MOD to call for a CBI enquiry. The CBI registering a Preliminary Enquiry in November 2021.
6.0 The CBI interaction with me during the Preliminary Enquiry in January 2022 and February 2022, wherein I was showed the documents/correspondences between BEL and CVC wherein BEL had resorted to blatant lies to counter the 15 observations made by the CVO-BEL in his Vigilance report. Hence BEL falsely proved (by providing tampered documents, 21 misinterpretation of facts and regulations) that no corruption had taken place and it was only lapse of procedures.
7.0 The CBI filing a FIR against Ex-CMD-BEL and other senior Officers of BEL with respect to corruption carried out in the implementation of IACCS Project. Thus, it got proved that the CVC was "Influenced" by CMD-BEL due to which my complaints were sent to CVO BEL violating the "Complaint handling Policy of CVC" as it exists in the CVC Portal."
As for the Respondents, Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 sought to be dispensed with in the matter as much as the instant appeal(s) are specifically filed against CVC and the Appellant has sought for records held by CVC.
Accordingly, the Commission decided to dispense with Respondent(s) 2,3 & 4.
Respondent No.1 sought to reiterate all of the replies that were already on record and remarked that the issues raised by the Appellant before this bench are outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that across the length and breadth of the instant appeal contents, the Appellant has only sought to challenge the decision of CVC to refer his complaints to BEL, Department of Defence etc. by way of seeking answers to interrogative queries, clarifications, justifications under the garb of asking for rule/policy/unspecified noting(s) and to a certain extent hypothetical documents that he believes shall prove to him the rationale followed by CVC in not taking the action as desired by him on the amplitude of complaints referred to by him. The sheer magnitude of the records placed before the Commission by way of the instant appeal(s) although compels the bench to take an empathetic view of the Appellant's alleged ordeal, however, the ambit of the RTI Act does not provide for mortifying the CPIOs or FAAs under the RTI Act to justify administrative actions of the public authority in a manner that is sought to be prescribed by the applicants. For this reason, the Commission is not inclined to call into question the merits of the factual replies provided or of the exemptions relied upon by the CPIO.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.22
For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) 23 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to 24 act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievances against the merits of the action/inaction of CVC on his averred complaints before the appropriate forum.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 25 ANNEXURE Serial File No. No.
1. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/644434
2. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/604594
3. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/606172
4. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/617092
5. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/600907
6. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/617301
7. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/617485 26