Central Information Commission
Harinder Dhingra vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 17 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/ESICO/A/2016/306660
Harinder Dhingra v. PIO, ESIC, Faridabad
RTI : 20.04.2016
FAO : 31.05.2016
Second Appeal : 31.08.2016
Hearing : 29.06.2017
Appellant : Shri Tarun Dhingra
Public Authority : Smt. Amita Suresh, CPIO
Shri R.S. Ram
Decided On : 17.07.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information on eight officers employed in ESIC whose date of joining and designation is mentioned in the respondent authority's letter no. 13/Z/11/11/2/2014/657 dated 06.11.2016. Specifically he sought for copies of admit card issued to eight officers for appearing in exam/test conducted by ESIC after which they were appointed; attendance sheet of examination centre carrying signatures of the eight officers; entrance permission/card carrying signatures of the eight officers; copies of latest official documents in which the signature of the officers are available and name and designation of the officer who is providing this information along with the details of appellant authority. CPIO denied providing information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. FAA on 31.05.2016 ordered the CPIO to convey the appellant the necessary information if it exists on record, within 15 days from the date of receipt of that order. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
Decision :
2. The appellant complained that the signatures of the officers in question were not provided and in a service matter like impersonation scandal, the public authority was expected to take action. The appellant also stated that the respondent authority are procrastinating the inquiry into the scandal and CIC/ESICO/A/2016/306660 Page 1 requested the Commission to direct the respondent authority to secure action taken report.
3. The appellant also contended that he has not received any information till date with regard to file no. CIC/BS/A/2016/001530, the background of the case and the Order of the Commission is as under:
"2. The appellant gave the background about the selected LDC's in a test conducted at Faridabad by ESIC on 20th September, 2009. The appellant in his second appeal to the Commission submitted the following:
"The undersigned was shocked to find that signatures on admit card of & Attendance Sheet of abovementioned successful candidates in written test, who were appointed as LDC in the said exams are quite different to the signatures of persons who appeared for said examination on 20th September 2009. To a lay man like undersigned who is not a handwriting expert the difference is quite evident. It is evident that abovementioned candidates who applied and were appointed LDC in ESIC were not the ones who appeared for examination. It was a la Munna Bhai MBBS (Hindi Film) movement.
The undersigned also got signatures of admit card & signatures of said candidates in Attendance Sheet of Computer Skill Test under RTI Act, 2005 and that too were different meaning thereby that here in Computer Skill test also people who were appointed as LDC in the said test were not the ones who took Computer test. Here again it was a la Munna Bhai (Hindi Film) movement.
The Scores secured by impersonating candidates were as follows:
Name of the Candidate Number procured in Computer
Skill test
1) Nityanand Kumar 47.5
2) Vikas Kumar 35.6
3) Sombir 33.2
4) Dev Roshan Patel 39.4
5) Rakesh Kumar 42.1
6) Vishal 30.1
7) Manjit Yadav 34
8) Rahul Khandelwal 26
Over all minimum 40% qualifying marks fixed for Computer Skill Test.
It is quite evident that at-least these eight successful candidates who were appointed LDC in ESIC & later may have been promoted CIC/ESICO/A/2016/306660 Page 2 to UDC etc etc got the appointment through illegal unfair & unfair & mala-fide means.
It is prayed that through investigation may be carried out to know the truth in undersigned above submissions & if found true then appropriate action be taken against all those responsible in the sordid Scam.
It is also pertinent to mention here that this is only tip of iceberg; the undersigned has sought information about Social Security Officer (also known as ESIC Inspector) of Delhi region and shall be complaining with all relevant details in due course of time."
3. The CPIO of the respondent authority provided a list of documents as sought by the appellant but could not provide the thumb impression of the candidates because they could not be procured at the time of the examination.
4. The appellant alleged that though the public authority has provided the information as available, it has not taken into cognisance the serious scandal pointed out in his various RTI applications. The very purpose of the RTI Act is to empower a citizen to question the inaction in the form of seeking information. It is clear from his applications and representations that something is seriously wrong and a kind of mini "vyaapam" scandal might have happened in the public authority. The Commission is surprised to know that nothing was initiated to probe this Munnabhai filmy type of impersonation scandal in spite of detailed RTI requests along with relevant copies in at least 11 cases.
5. The appellant alleged that around 800 candidates were appointed to various posts by conducting different examinations at different regional offices of the public authority, and he suspects hundreds of impersonations. He also claimed that he has repeatedly represented this matter to various authorities, but there was no response. It is not just the issue of ineligible candidates being appointed, but the problem of ineligible candidates working in ESIC from many years which will adversely affect the performance of the duties of the employees that might result in en masse violation of rights of workers.
6. The appellant submitted before the Commission that eight members have impersonated and wrote examination for other candidates and helped ineligible candidates to secure employment wrongfully. He expressed confidence that he could prove this allegation and also stated that if this is probed further, it could reveal a scandal of impersonated selections. The appellant stated that he has filed a comprehensive complaint along with relevant documents to various authorities including the Vigilance Officer of the Public Authority.
CIC/ESICO/A/2016/306660 Page 3
7. It is surprising that the public authority could not discover such a serious issue of impersonation from the documents submitted by the applicant and the files available with their own office. There is a huge public interest in the batch of RTI applications filed by the appellant. The Commission finds an urgent need to probe into this impersonation scandal.
8. Hence, the Commission directs the public authority headed by Director General to consider the RTI applications of the appellant and this appeal as formal complaint and inform him and the Commission, the action taken on this complaint within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The office of this Commission is directed to mark a copy to the Hon'ble Minister for Labour and Employment, and Principal Secretary of the Ministry, along with the copy of the complaint filed by the appellant for necessary and immediate action.
4. The appellant in his written submissions stated that:
"As per the information received under RTI Act from Assistant Director (Rectt.) ESI Corporation the instant matter was handed over to Chief Vigilance Officer ESI Corporation on 27th April 2017.
The CPIO cum Assistant Director (VIU) (NZ) vide his letter dated 24th May 2017 to the undersigned stated in his reply that no correspondence has been made with any department or with the concerned officials regarding the impersonation complaint and further stated that signatures of officials has not been sent to CFSL or any other Government agent for verification.
It is quite evident that at-least these eight successful candidates who were appointed LDC in ESIC & later may have been promoted to UDC etc got the appointment through illegal, unfair & mala-fide means.
It is prayed that quick action be taken on the direction of the honourable Commission and the signature of the above mentioned eight officers should be sent to hand writing expert as early as possible to expose the scandal."
5. Appellant said that he was neither given complete information nor the respondent authority took any action against those responsible for the impersonation. The public authority should have taken some action and then informed him about the status. According to him the public authority has handed CIC/ESICO/A/2016/306660 Page 4 over the investigation to the Chief Vigilance Officer of ESIC. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the certified copy of the letter writte to the Vigilance Department, and directs the Chief Vigilance Officer ESIC to inform the status of inquiry, along with latest action taken report, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, ESIC, Panchdeep Bhawan, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
2. Shri Harinder Dhingra, D4A/7, DLF Phase-01, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
CIC/ESICO/A/2016/306660 Page 5