Central Information Commission
Mra K Goel vs Ministry Of Law & Justice on 19 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/C/2015/000119
A.K.Goel Vs. CPIO, Dept of Legal Affairs, GOI
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI application: 2432015 1st Appeal: 1742015 Complaint: 2842015
Closed/show cause Hearing:14102015 Decision: 19012016
Parties present:
1. The complainant is present. PIO for respondent authority is absent. Mr. P. R.
Ramanathan, Section Officer, who did not show any authorization to represent PIO was
present. But he claimed ignorance and no authority to explain.
FACTS:
2. The complainant is seeking information regarding the details of expenditure incurred by the respondent authority in filing and fighting cases against him in various courts. In the absence of response, he approached the Commission in complaint. Complainant stated that:
a) CPWD denied him promotion since 31.12.85 before his junior Mr JB Fadia in the list.
CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 1
b) DPC had not ignored 3 year old adverse remarks in his ACR, which should have been ignored as per rules and practices.
c) Denial of promotion is a penalty, which cannot be imposed without inquiry.
d) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad CAT in his OA 587 of 1997 directed on 24.5.2004 ante dated promotion as Superintending Engineer (Electrical) since 31.12.85 with consequential benefits etc and ordered its implementation before next promotion as Chief Engineer (Electrical).
e) Though there was a vacancy in CE arising on 23.11.04 DPC meeting was not convened.
f) CPWD/MoUD connived with KK Sharma and SP Barnwal by providing confidential records pertaining to him, which were false and fabricated. His juniors attached his ACR reports along with review application against him. ACRs were purely subjective.
g) Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice advised implementation of CAT Allahabad order several times. On 27.8.2004 it was observed that 'it was not a fit case for filing appeal against the order of the CAT', on 17.1.2005 advised "it was not a fit case worth challenging by filing writ appeal", on 28.6.2005 "we had not considered necessary to file writ appeal", on 1.4.2009 "we are of the opinion that Delhi High Court order should be implemented to avoid the contempt proceedings" and finally the Attorney General of India on 31.07.2009 advised "In my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing to flog the issue in AK Goel's case. The SLP may be withdrawn and the orders that have been issued in the case may be implemented in accordance with law".
h) Contempt application was filed in 2006 in CAT Allahabad. This was stalled by a writ petition in Allahabad High Court, without approval of Law Ministry and without serving him, which was dismissed on 5.10.2008.
CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 2
i) Second review application was filed without approval of law ministry before CAT Allahabad, which was also dismissed on 8.4.2008.
j) Delhi CAT passed order in petition filed by his juniors KK Sharma and SP Barnwal without hearing him. This order to promote them was implemented within two months.
k) Writ Petition filed challenging order of CAT Delhi which was given in the petition filed by KK Sharma and SP Barnwal. Surprisingly MoUD defended the case of two juniors which show their involvement. Delhi High Court allowed his WP and ordered compliance of but illegal promotion orders of these two juniors were not cancelled.
l) MoUD filed WP before High Court Allahabad against orders of Delhi High Court which was also dismissed on 27.7.2012. This writ was also filed without approval of Law Ministry.
m) Law Ministry advised implementation of the Delhi High Court by a note dated 15.1.2009. Review petition of Dev Dutt was also dismissed on 11.11.08. Still Delhi High Court's order was not implemented.
n) Contempt case no 6 of 2009 was filed in Delhi High Court, which was stalled as MoUD filed an SLP 7500/2009, which also was dismissed. If felt aggrieved, KK Sharma and SP Barnwal should have filed an appeal, but MoUD chose to file SLP making two juniors dummy respondents. Fraudulently obtained stay order against implementation of promotion order. SLP was filed by MoUD without approval of Attorney General.
o) Law ministry's advice to implement order of Delhi High was defied by MoUD.
p) Attorney General advised withdrawal of SLP on 30.7.09, but litigation was continued.
q) DoLA Ministry of Law advised on 3.9.09 that it was not appropriate on the part of Ministry/Department to say that neither bound by advice given by this department nor can refuse to follow such advice. MoUD defied the directions of Law Ministry.
CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 3
r) This SLP was converted into Civil Appeal no 2872 of 2010, which was also dismissed on 27.11.2014.
s) All these actions are in gross violation of National Litigation Policy to reduce the pendency announced by Minister for Law on 23.6.2010.
t) This kind of litigation has killed his career and harassed him. Justice was delayed by three decades.
DECISION:
3. Appellant explained above how he was harassed and denied promotion. No authoritative representative attended on behalf of respondent authority. Section officer just made himself present, and could not say anything as he does not know. The appellant Mr. Goel submitted that he was due for promotion to the grade of Additional D.G., CPWD but the Department had overlooked his promotion. On his application, the CAT, Allahabad gave favorable verdict. The Department instead of promoting him as directed went in appeal to the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their appeal. He alleged that his colleagues conspired and generated a case before Delhi CAT bench, where the order of CAT Allahabad was overruled. When he pointed out this illegal overruling by Delhi CAT, the Delhi High Court has rightly quashed order of the Delhi CAT order. The department should have implemented the order at least at that time. But they preferred to approach the Supreme Court. The apex court upheld the High Court verdict, favouring the promotion due to the appellant by dismissing SLP. Thus the Department has lost all cases against the appellant, but still his rightful promotion was denied. His agony was that some people deliberately conspired against him in the department to deny his promotion. The appellant stands retired with effect from 2010, disappointed that he was not given his due promotion.
CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 4 The appellant wanted to know how much of public money is wasted to fight against his right in every forum.
4. Besides causing serious harassment of appellant Mr. A.K Goel, his department CPWD has also caused wastage of public money fighting him up to Supreme Court in spite of opinion by legal authorities including Attorney General, that it was not a fit case of appealing or filing special leave petition and advised to implement the direction to give promotion to avoid punishment for contempt of court. Even after retirement, appellant did not get at least his notional promotion from the due date when he was in service.
5. It is also a case of abuse of authority by some officers and abuse of legal process reflecting bad governance in a public office. Though it appears like a grievance of an individual, the entire episode reflects how some officers could use public machinery and money to harass their colleague.
6. It is really pathetic that the appellant could not get any benefit even after winning almost all cases till Supreme Court. It means the entire department has committed contempt of court by disregarding its orders. Unfortunately the Department of Legal Affairs also was non responsive to his RTI request. DoLA which advised MoUD not to litigate in so many letters written to them, could not get their advice implemented. There is no justification in denying promotion and also denying the information about the expenditure incurred on lawyers and fighting the case against the appellant.
CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 5
7. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, directs the CPIO/Ministry of Urban Development (Department of Works) and the CPIO/Litigation Cell of High Court, and PIO of Dept of Legal Affairs to furnish detailed information to the appellant about expenditure proposed/incurred in obtaining opinions, filing and hiring advocates in several cases to fight against appellant, as sought by him, along with certified copies of bills paid for the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The Commission, further, directs the CPIO, MoUD to explain why respondent authority should not be directed to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 (Fifty Thousand only) to the appellant for the detriment he suffered.
9. The Commission further directs the CPIO Department of Legal Affairs to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not responding to his RTI application and for not attending the hearing in this Commission and also explain why DoLA should not be directed to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 (twenty five thousand only) to the appellant for denial of information.
10. Their explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. Case is posted for compliance on 9th February, 2016 at 2.30 pm. (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 6 Authenticated true copy (U.C.Joshi) Deputy Secretary Address of the parties :
1. The CPIO under RTI Act, Govt. of India Department of Legal Affairs (Litigation CellHigh Court) DELHI HIGH COURT, New Delhi110001
2. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt of India Ministry of Urban Development, Department of Works RTI Cell, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi110011
3. Shri A.K.Goel 1st Floor, 110A/4, Krishan Nagar Safadarjung Enclave, New Delhi110029 CIC/SA/C/2015/000119 Page 7