Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.R D Sharma vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 11 November, 2013

                   Central Information Commission
Room No.306, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
   Tele:011­26180512 & 011­26717355 Fax : 01126106145 website­cic.gov.in

                    Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001383 
 
Appellant /Complainant        :       Shri R.D. Sharma, Chandigarh
Public Authority              :     Health Department, Chandigarh
                              (Dr, Balraj Krishan Salwan, Sh. D.S. 
Bhansal, Ms
                              Veena Rani, Sr. Asstt. , Sh. 
O.P.Arora,Consultant)

Date of Hearing               :     11 November   2013 
Date of Decision              :     11 November   2013 
  
Facts:­ 

1. Appellant   submitted   RTI   application   dated   22   March   2013  before   the   CPIO,   Municipal   Corporation,   UT,   Chandigarh;  seeking information in connection  with the inquiry  report  of  Vigilance  Department conducted  in the case of Complaint made  by   Shri   Chander   Mukhi   Sharma,   R/o   H.   No.   38,   Sector­10­A,  Chandigarh in the year 2011 against M/s Jai Prakash Associates  Ltd., Chandigarh.

2. Vide CPIO Order dated 23 April 2013, CPIO informed that  the desired information is not directly with their department  but   it   relates   to   the   Vigilance   Department   of   Chandigarh  Administration  (3rd  Party),  therefore   your  application  is  yet  not finalized for want of consent received from the Vigilance  Department, U.T. Chandigarh by their Office. Later by the CPIO  Order dated 10 May 2013, CPIO denied the sought information as  the 3rd party has refused to give the same.

3. Not   satisfied   by   the   CPIO's   reply,   the   Appellant  preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated  13 May 2013.

4. Vide   FAA   Order   dated   29   May   2013,   the   FAA   upheld   the  decision of the CPIO.

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001383                

5. Being  aggrieved and not satisfied  by the above response  of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal  before the Commission.

 6.  The matter was heard today.  Both the parties, as above,  appeared   in   person   and   made   submissions.     The   Vigilance  Department was also represented by  Shri D.S. Bharwal, Supdt.  Incharge,  Vigilance Cell,  U.T. Secretariat  who was   present.  The appellant pressed for disclosure of information as sought  by   him on the grounds that the Vigilance  Cell,  U.T. Sectt.  had  completed   the   inquiry   almost   two   years   ago   and   had   also  passed on the said Inquiry Report to the MC, Chandigarh.  The  Supdt.   Incharge   Vigilance   Cell   stated   that   the   inquiry   was  completed on 19.10.2011 and a copy of the Report was forwarded  to the Commissioner, MC , Chandigarh in February/March, 2012.  Later, a reference was made to the CVC seeking their comments  on   4.7.2013.     It   was   also   submitted   that   CVC   responded   by  seeking   some   more   information   from   the   Vigilance   Cell   vide  letter dated 18.10.2012.   It was stated by Shri D.S. Bharwal  that this information was provided by the MCC on 2.4.2013 and  that   the Vigilance Cell   had   not yet   forwarded   this   to  the     CVC.     The   representative   of   the   Health   Department  accepted that copy of the Inquiry Report had been received by  them.

Decision Notice

7. After  hearing  all the parties,  Commission  notes that an  inquiry that was completed as early as 19.10.2011 was referred  to   the   CVC   for   their   comments   after   a     delay     of   over   8   ½  months by the Vigilance Cell of U.T. Secretariat.  Further to  compound   the   delay,   the   response   received   from   Municipal  Corporation,   Chandigarh   dated   2.4.2013   in   response   to   the  query   raised   by   CVC   vide   their   letter   of   18.10.2012   still  remains pending with the Supdt. Incharge Vigilance Cell, U.T.  Sectt. to date, leading the Commission to surmise that there  appears   to   be   some   intention   to   delay   the   matter   by   the  Vigilance Cell, U.T. Sectt. especially since CVC responded to  the   communication   received   from   Vigilance   Cell   after   going  through over 2000 pages Inquiry Report in just 3.1/2 months.  Also the appellant is the party against whom inquiry was held  Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001383                 after  receiving complaint  from Shri Chander Mukhi  Sharma who  it   is   stated   is   a   business   competitor   of   the   appellant.  Therefore,   appellant   has   every   right   to   know   the   outcome   of  the inquiry which was completed in October, 2011.  Therefore,  it   is   directed   that   the   holder   of   the   information   i.e.  Municipal   Corporation   will   provide   opportunity   of   inspection  of the Inquiry Report to the appellant within three weeks of  receipt of the order for a period of 03 (three) hours free of  cost.  However, no photo­copy of any document will be provided  to the appellant till the matter is complete and over. Also,  any communication of the Public Authority with  Vigilance Cell  need not be disclosed till the matter is over.

 

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 011­26105027 Copy to:­  
1. Shri R.D. Sharma  (Unit Incharge) Green­Tech Fuel Processing Plant,  (A Unit of M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) Sector­25, Chandigarh
2. The CPIO Medical Office (Health) Municipal Corporation  New Deluxe Bldg., Sector­17 Chandigarh
3. The Appellate Authority Additional Commissioner­I Municipal Corporation  New Deluxe Bldg., Sector­17 Chandigarh     Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001383                         Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001383