Central Information Commission
Shri.Rajender Panday vs Cbi on 13 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000178 dated 21.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rajinder Pandey
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced: 13.4.2010
Facts:
By an application of 19.6.08 Shri Rajinder Pandey of Ranchi, Jharkhand applied to the CPIO, CBI Ranchi seeking the following information:
"1a) Government of Bihar prepares Annual Financial Statement for withdrawal of Head wise consolidated funds for Govt.
jobs under Art. 202 and presents the same in the Vidhan Sabha under Art. 203 & 204 for passing the same and permitting withdrawal of funds from the Treasury. Bihar Vidhan Sabha, after approval of Accounts Grant Ordinance permits withdrawal of sanctioned amount from the Consolidated Funds from the Treasury. This information for Head wise grant is conveyed to Accountant General, Finance Department. Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar withdrew funds in excess of sanctioned amount in the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1994-95 to the tune of Rs. 29.29 crore, 70.72 crore, 87.77 crore, 125.03 crore & 170.61 crore respectively. Accountant General (Audit) Bihar in their annual report at pages 40, 45, 50, 45 & 35 in paras 2.2.7, 2.2.7, 2.2.7, 2.2.7 & 2.2.6-7 brought this to the notice of Hon'ble Governor through its Annual Accounts Statement and recommended that under art. 205 the case be put up to Vidhan Sabha, Bihar for regularizing excess withdrawal and adjustable amount.
Hon'ble High Court & Supreme Court gave the case to CBI for investigation of excess withdrawal from treasury in the years 1977-78 by Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar. Then Accountant General (Audit) Bihar in July 1997 intimated Hon'ble Governor about Fraudulent Withdrawal of Rs. 29.29 crore, 70.72 crore, 87.77 crore, 125.03 crore and 170.61 crore as Excess and Adjustable Amount in previous years, as per earlier submissions made by them. Please intimate in the context of directions passed by Monitoring Batch on 7.4.2000 in IA No. 1554/2000 and in the Affidavit 1 submitted by CBI on 29.3.2001 in IA 3895/2000 that besides Accountant General, from which officers & employee, the CBI made enquiries regarding reasons for intimating the amount in the initial stage as correct and later on as wrong. Please provide copies of statements recorded and Case No. in which Constitutional Duties of Accountant General (Audit) were enquired and mentioned in that case.
b) CIC in its affidavit has accepted that supply of material for Annual CAG Report, Reconciliation of Accounts and Compilation of Fully vouched & Treasury Bills have been verified and investigation is still continuing. In RC 31(A) 96, the document in paper S. No. 272, 305, 335, 382, 391, 407, 580& 701 is voucher of Doranda Treasury, which CBI has seized from the Office of Accountant General (Audit). In the year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1994-95 the House has sanctioned withdrawal of 1990-91 (unknown), 1991-92 (unknown), 1992-93 (1.61 crore), 1993-94 ( 1.80 crore) and 1994-95 (1.89 crore) from consolidated funds for entire Bihar under sub head 105 of Main Head 2403, but the Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Sooker, Development Officer Ranchi through voucher in T.C. Memo 37 Distribution col. Withdrew from treasury in the Year 1990-91 Rs. 2.80 crore, in the year 1991-92 through three vouchers Rs. 1.60, 1.75 & 1.80 crore respectively, in year 1992-93 Rs. 6.80 crore, through 2 vouchers of 1993-94 20.24 and 22.34 crore respectively and in 1994-95 through 3 vouchers 8.04, 18.04 and 12.04 crore respectively by making false allotments year after year. In previous years Accountant General (Audit) has terms these withdrawals as Excess Withdrawals and Adjustable amount under art. 205. In previous years these withdrawals were never terms as Fraudulent Withdrawals in any of the reports.
In which case No. the results of investigation and verification was mentioned, after seizure of these treasury vouchers from the Office of Accountant General by the CBI. Similarly in which case the statements of officials and Officers were recorded regarding material for Annual CAG Report, Reconciliation of Accounts and Compilation of Fully Vouched & Treasury Bills. Please provide copy alongwith case No.
c) In its affidavit, CBI has submitted in sec. 9 that "it is emphatically stated that the cases are being investigated completely in a fair and complete manner in IA No. 1554/2000. The duties and responsibilities of Accountant General (Audit), Bihar have been 2 defined in The Comptroller and Auditor General (Duties Power and Service Conditions) Act 1971, Manual of Standing Orders ( A & E part I, II, Audit) and art. 149, 151, 204(3) 205 and 266(3) of Constitution of India. CBI has also referred to their constitutional duties in its affidavit. Appellant wants to know that in which cases the investigation has been done under constitutional rights and duties of the Accountant General regarding year after year fraudulent withdrawals by the Animal Husbandry Department before and after 7.4.2000. In which cases the charge sheet has been filed after 7.4.2000 and particularly in which cases Accountant General's constitutional rights have been investigated, and investigation report has been mentioned. After 7.4.2000 in which case the charge sheet has been filed, its case number and copy of charge sheet may be provided."
To this, he received a response dated 15.7.08 from SP, CBI refusing the information on grounds of exemption u/s 8(1) (h). Aggrieved Shri Pandey moved an appeal before the Jt. Director, CBI, New Delhi, upon which Shri A. K. Singh, DIG of Police, CBI, ACR, Patna / First Appellate Authority, in his order of 19.9.08 in appeal No. 2/2008 allowed the appeal, as follows:
"In my opinion providing information of case numbers and date of filing charge-sheet in which the role of A. G. Officials were investigated do not impede the process of prosecution of offenders in any way. Further the statement of officials recorded, covering aspects of Annual CAG Report, reconciliation of accounts and compilation of fully vouched and Treasury Bills recorded if prosecution has relied upon for proving the case may be supplied to the appellant also.
CPIO, AHD submits that voluminous case records of 53 cases have to be checked.
Hence, CPIO should supply the information to the appellant Rajendra Pandey within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order."
In his second appeal before us, however, appellant Shri Rajinder Pandey has expressed his dissatisfaction with the compliance of CPIO, as below:
"CPIO / Superintendent of Police, CBI Kali Babu Street, Ranchi has provided misleading information against the orders of DIG, with which the appellant is not satisfied.3
1. Applicant wants to know clearly that Accountant General Bihar has every year submitted in its Annual Report for the years 1987-88 to 1994-95 showing excess withdrawals of 6.92, 6.13, 8.75, 29.29, 70.72, 87.77, 125.03 and 170.61 crore respectively referring to the art. 204(3) & 266(3) of Constitution of India and recommending its adjustability under art. 205 to the Hon'ble Governor. And on start of investigation by the C.B.I., how this amount was declared as fraudulent withdrawals. Please inform in which cases these matters have been investigated.
2 a) Be it known that in financial year 1992-93 the Bihar Vidhan Sabha had appropriated Rs. 1.61 crore in sub head 105 of main head 2403 under the Appropriation Act, but the Drawing & Disbursing Officer had forwarded the voucher to Treasury after showing this amount as Rs. 6.80 crore and withdrawn the amount and the Accountant General in Annual Report of 1992-93 had shown this amount as Excess withdrawal and recommended its adjustment under art. 205 of Constitution of India.
b) In financial year 1993-94 the Bihar Vidhan Sabha had appropriated Rs. 1.80 crore in sub head 105 of main head 2403 under the Appropriation Act for withdrawn from Treasury, but the Drawing & Disbursing Officer after showing the amount of Rs. 20.34 crore and 22.34 crore to Treasury withdrew this amount and the Accountant General in Annual Report of 1993-94 had shown this amount as Excess withdrawal and recommended its adjustment under art. 205 of Constitution of India.
c) In financial year 1994-95 the Bihar Vidhan Sabha had appropriated Rs. 1.89 crore in sub head 105 of main head 2403 under the Appropriation Act for withdrawal from the Treasury, but the Drawing & Disbursing Officer after showing this amount as Rs. 8.04 crore and 12.04 crore withdrew this amount and the Accountant General in Annual Report of 1992-93 had shown this amount as Excess withdrawal and recommended its adjustment to the Hon'ble Governor, under art. 205 of Constitution of India. Appellant wants to know from CBI as to under which rule of The Comptroller General (Duties, Powers & Service Conditions) Act, 1971, has shown this amount as excess withdrawal and recommendation under art. 205 of Constitution of India for adjusting this amount. In which case, this matter has been investigated.
43. In violation of art. 149, 151, 204(3), 205, 266(3), Animal Husbandry Department Bihar had been withdrawing money every year and Accountant General used to record the same as covered under the rules and used to recommend the same for adjustment. Under which case it has been investigated that how this amount has become fraudulent withdrawal, please intimate case number.
Please intimate the case number in which investigation on application dated 29.3.01 filed for investigation of constitutional responsibilities and IA 3895/2000 with Hon'ble High Court, Patna Monitoring Bench was done."
The appeal was heard on 13.4.2010 by videoconference. The following are present at NIC Studio, Ranchi, Jharkhand:
Appellant Shri Rajinder Pandey Respondents Shri R. C. Chaudhary, CPIO / SP, CBI, Ranchi CPIO Shri R. C. Chaudhary, SP, CBI submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority was in two parts - (i) to provide information of case numbers and date of filing of charge sheet of all documents after 7.4.2000 and (ii) similarly, statement of officials recorded covering the aspect of annual CAG Report also from that date. In his view, this order had been fully complied with. Appellant, on the other hand, submitted that Appellate Authority Shri A. K. Singh has upheld his request in ordering disclosure yet SP CBI has only provided disclosure in part, thus evading providing information on the real issues that appellant Shri Rajinder Pandey wished to address.
Respondent, Shri R. C. Chaudhary also explained in detail the origin of the cases before the High Court and the investigation having arisen, dating from the time that the states of Jharkhand and Bihar were undivided.
DECISION NOTICE 5 In his letter of 26.9.08 SP, CBI, AHD Ranchi has, in compliance with the orders of Appellate Authority supplied the following information to appellant Shri Rajinder Pandey:
"CBI AHD Ranchi laid charge sheets in the following 17 cases after 7/4/2000:
Identity number of the case Dt of laying charge sheet
RC 23/96 5/5/2000
RC 38/96 11/5/2000
RC 39/96 30/9/2000
RC 45/96 12/10/2001
RC 49/96 11/4/2001
Rc 50/96 25/3/2001
RC 51/96 14/11/2000
RC 52/96 30/11/2001
RC 68/96 13/12/2001
RC 24/96 4/5/2000
RC 46/96 20/4/2001
RC 47/96 8/5/2001
RC 48/96 27/11/2001
RC 5/2000 13/6/2002
RC 2/2001 21/5/2002
RC 3/2001 28/6/2002
RC 4/2001 18/5/2002
Out of the cases mentioned hereinabove AG officials were examined in three of the cases, i.e. RC 46/A/96-Pat, RC 47/A/96- Pat and RC 48/A/96-Pat. However they were examined much before 7/4/2000. An officer of the rank of Dy. Accountant General, O/o Principal Ag, Patna was examined on 20.4.2001 and 27.11.2001 in RC 47/A/96-Pat and RC 48/A.96-Pat respectively which briefly articulates the role of AG. However, reconciliation of accounts and compilation of fully vouched treasury bills etc. Also the statements of remaining two officials of the O/o PAG, Ranch are silent on those points."
Decision Notice This appeal amounts to little more than simply a complaint by appellant Shri Rajinder Pandey of non-compliance by CPIO with the orders of the Appellate Authority. We have been informed during the hearing by respondent Shri R. C. Chaudhary, SP, CBI, the position of DIG, CBI, ACR Patna now stands 6 abolished and has been supplanted by the position of a Jt. Director, CBI, Patna, the present incumbent of which position is Shri R. P. Aggarwal.
From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of alleged malafide denial of information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, and some inadequacies in exchanging documents now stand addressed, the Commission has decided to remand the case back to the First Appellate Authority Shri R. P. Aggarwal, Jt. Director, CBI, Patna to ensure that orders under section 19 (1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed. In doing so, he will ensure the supply of specific information cited in the previous paragraphs by appellant Shri Rajinder Pandey.
If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, the appellate authority should approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and/ or recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to the right of the first Appellate Authority to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers, if so established.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13.4.2010 7 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 13.4.2010 8