Central Information Commission
Ms. Hiteshi Arora vs Department Of Personnel & Training ... on 24 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00939 dated 26.5.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Hiteshi Arora
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Decision announced 24.9.'09
Facts:
By an application of 5.2.08 Ms. Hiteshi Arora of Faridabad, Haryana, applied to the CPIO, DOPT seeking the following information:
"Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora is facing criminal case prosecution under section 328 read with Section 511, 323, 506, 342, 451 read with section 34 IPC in FIR No. 322 dated 24.8.06 PS Tilak Marg, New Delhi in the court of Shri Vinod Bansal Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, and charge sheet has already been filed against him in March 2007 and charges under above sections have been framed by Ld. ASJ Court against him is still legible for promotion in spite of the fact that criminal charges under above said sections have been framed against him.
Secondly Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora is also facing another criminal case prosecution under section 498 A, 406, 423, 506, 120B IPC in FIR No. 391 PS Central Faridabad where also charge sheet has been framed against him by Ld. ACJM Faridabad. Is he still eligible for promotion?
As the appointment is subject to vigilance clearance. Has Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora obtained Vigilance report of clearance in his favour?
Kindly provide the undersigned, copy of vigilance report of clearance in his favour that he can be promoted even after he is facing criminal charges in criminal cases pending in Delhi and Faridabad courts.
Has the vigilance committee conducted an enquiry in regard to two criminal cases pending against him?
The orders of both the courts of two FIRs Nos. 322 and 391 are attached herewith for kind perusal.1
Has the Ministry of Planning Commission before relieving Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora intimated your department the fact that these two criminal cases are pending against him."
To this she received a response dated 11.2.08 from Shri Shaukat Ali, CPIO, DOPT providing the following information:
"In the case of Shri Naresh Kumar Arora a Section Officer of the Planning Commission, the Commission had not furnished the vigilance clearance in his respect. This Department had issued order for promotion of Smt. Naresh Kumar Arora, alongwith others subject to the vigilance clearance. A copy of this Department's order dated 27th September, 2007, is enclosed. From the aforesaid order, it may be seen that in paragraphs 1 (iv) and 2, it has clearly been stated that the officer may be relieved for his promotion if he is clear from vigilance angle. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to verify the vigilance because before Shri Arora was relieved for taking up the post of Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Since nothing adverse had come to the notice of this Department, his promotion could not be withheld. In view of the above, you may obtain the exact position from the Planning Commission who are concerned in the matter."
In a repeat of the application of 5.2.08 Ms. Hiteshi has then moved an appeal on 15.2.08 before First Appellate Authority Shri R. K. Ojha DS, CS-1, DOPT upon which by his order of 28.2.08 Shri Ojha has held as follows:
"The information available in this Department has already been given to you by the CPIO. This Department had issued orders for promotion of Shri Naresh Kumar Arora, Section Officer of the Planning Commission to the grade of Under Secretary on adhoc basis subject to his being clear from the vigilance angle since the Planning Commission had not furnished the vigilance status in respect of Shri Arora. It was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to verify the vigilance status before relieving Shri Naresh Kumar Arora for his promotion to the grade of Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Further facts may be obtained from the Planning Commission."
In the meantime, presumably in consequence of the information provided by CPIO Shri Shaukat Ali appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora has moved an application before the CPIO, Planning Commission on 15.2.08, as follows:
"1. Did your planning commission furnish the Vigilance clearance report of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora to Department of Personnel and Training Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi?2
If yes, then kindly supply the copy of vigilance clearance report to the undersigned.
If no, then kindly state the reasons in regard to same.
2. Did your Planning Commission department inform the Department of Personnel & Training about the two criminal cases proceedings pending against Mr. Naresh Arora, bearing FIR No. 322 dated 24.8.06 under Sec. 328 r/w sec. 511, 323, 506, 342, 451 r/w 34 IPC PS Tilak Marg, New Delhi and FIR No. 391 dated 28.8.06 under Sec. 498A, 406, 120B, 323, 506, 34 IPC PS Central Faridabad.
3. As per order dated 27th Sept., 2007 of Promotion of Section Officers of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) to Grade 1 (Under Secretary) of CSS on adhoc basis.
Has Mr. Naresh Arora fulfilled requirement of paragraph 1(iv) and 2 of the said order dated 27.9.07 before your Planning Commission relieved him for promotion?
The undersigned was informed by CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions that no vigilance clearance report was furnished by your department to Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training in respect of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora so kindly reply to the next query i.e.
4. Kindly inform me that during period of last 5 years the No. of cases/persons relieved from your department for promotion without obtaining vigilance clearance report.
5. Did your vigilance department conduct enquiry in regard to two criminal case proceedings pending against Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora and submitted report in regard to same?"
To this Ms. Hiteshi Arora received a response dated 20.2.08, as below:
"Point No. 1 to 3. The Planning Commission had furnished the vigilance report to DOPT in r/o Shri N. K. Arora, the then Section Officer, Planning Commission vide PC Office Memorandum No. A-48018/3/2006-Admn.V dated 1st October, 2007. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith.
Point No. 4. Nil
Point No. 5 No. "
3
Subsequently, in a letter of 21.2.08 Shri Naseem Ahmad, APIO, Planning Commission has informed appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora that the vigilance report has been received from the concerned Division and she may pay the cost and obtain a copy.
In this case there seem to be two appeals with the first appeal dated 15.2.08 simply repeating the application to the CPIO and another of 29.2.08 dealing with the response received from PIO, pleading as follows:
"The undersigned therefore, requests the Appellate Authority to take up this matter as the reply given by the CPIO is vague and evasive and is not satisfactory."
This has been sought to be elucidated by appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora, as follows:
"Your department is saying that they have submitted and department of DOPT, Home Ministry is saying that they have not received the Vigilance clearance report of Mr. Naresh Kr. Arora. There is a contradiction in the reply of both the Ministries and the undersigned fails to understand the same, the reason of contradiction."
Upon this Ms. Hiteshi Arora has received the following response through APIO Shri Naseem Ahmad:
"Paras 3 & 4 Against Point Nos. 1 to 3 of application dated 15.02.2008 of Ms. Hiteshi Arora seeking information under RTI Act, it was intimated that the Planning Commission had furnished the vigilance report to DOPT in respect of Shri N. K. Arora, then Section Officer, Planning Commission vide O.M. No. A-48018/3/2006-Admn.V dated 1st October, 2007. This status was furnished to DOPT in connection with the preparation of Select List of Under Secretaries of CSS for the year 2003. Earlier, Planning Commission had also furnished vigilance status in respect of Shri N. K. Arora to DOPT vide OM No. A-19015/2/95-Admn.V. dated 25.4.2007 clearly indicating his being under deemed suspension and its subsequent revocation on the recommendation of the duly constituted Review Committee. This status was furnished to DOPT when his case was being considered by them for his adhoc promotion to the grade of Under Secretary. A copy of Planning Commission OM dated 25.4.2007 sent to DOPT to this effect is enclosed. As such, the fact of institution of criminal cases against Shri N. K. Arora and his deemed 4 suspension on this account was very much in the notice of DOPT, Cadre controlling authority, when his case was considered by them for grant of adhoc promotion to the grade of Under Secretary.
Para 5. The information sought in para 5 in Appeal was not sought in her original application dated 15.2.2008.
Para 6 Based on the information made available by SHO, Tilak Marg, New Delhi the fact of deemed suspension of Shri N. K. Arora from 24.8.2006 to 14.11.2006 on criminal charge was intimated to DOPT vide Planning Commission OM No. A- 19015/2/95-Admn.V dated 25.4.2007.
Para 7. In view of the position stated in the Para wise comments of Paras 3 & 4, there is nothing more to addl."
Appellant's prayer before us in appeal in which she has consolidated both streams of DOPT & Planning Commission, is as below:
"i) The Hon'ble Central Information Commission may impose a maximum monetary penalty on the concerned officers of the Planning Commission and DOPT as per Sec. 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 for knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, misleading & contradictory information.
ii) The Hon'ble Central Information Commission may recommend to the concerned authorities disciplinary action against the concerned officers of the Planning Commission and DOPT as per Sec. 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 for knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, misleading and contradictory information.
iii) The Hon'ble Central Information Commission may institute a high powered independent inquiry committee to unearth the extent of the role played by each of the concerned officers of the Planning Commission & DOPT in illegally helping Shri Naresh Kumar Arora, Section Officer in securing promotion to the Under Secretary grade in gross violation of the applicable rules & instructions of Govt. of India, and thereafter recommend appropriate disciplinary action against them.
iv) The Hon'ble Central Information Commission may direct DOPT to immediately cancel and withdraw the promotion of Shri Naresh Kr. Arora Section Officer and to follow the procedure applicable in such cases."5
As can be seen, the pleas at (iii) & (iv) are beyond the authority of the Information Commission. The only issue before us is what is contained in paragraph (i) of the prayer of the appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora. The appeal was heard on 24.9.09. The following are present:
Appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora Shri Vivek Chawla Shri Javed Respondents Shri S. Kesava Iyer, US, Planning Commission Shri Sanjeev Jain, S.O., Planning Commission Shri L. N. Bhatt, UDC, Planning Commission Shri M. C. Luther, Dy. Secy., DOPT Shri A. K. Cashyap, Under Secy., DOPT Appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora submitted that a request to the CPIO, Planning Commission regarding any vigilance / departmental enquiry conducted against Shri Naresh Kumar Arora when it was known to the Department that there is a criminal case pending against him, has also been a specific 'no', which shows at best a grave abdication of authority by the Planning Commission. On the other hand, the DOPT has suppressed the fact of receipt of the Planning Commission's communication to enable them to proceed with the promotion otherwise undeserved.
Shri M. L. Luther, DS, DOPT submitted that he has examined the proceedings of the Screening Committee in which the vigilance column against the name of Shri Naresh Kumar Arora has been left blank, which would indicate that the communication of the Planning Commission had not been received. However, on Shri S. Kesava Iyer, US, Planning Commission producing a copy of the peon book which at Sr. No. 99 dated 3.10.07 has registered receipt by hand in the office of Shri R. K. Ojha, DS, DOPT, Shri Luther has re-examined the file only to find that the letter of 3.10.07 has in fact been received and also diarized on the same date.
DECISION NOTICE 6 It is now established beyond doubt that in fact the Planning Commission had sent the letter concerned and this had also been duly received in DoPT. Why the Planning Commission did not conduct a vigilance enquiry on the basis of its being informed of the criminal proceedings pending against Shri Naresh Kumar Arora is not a subject of the present RTI application, which has clearly established that although such information was available to the Planning Commission, no vigilance enquiry was held. This is an issue for the Planning Commission to consider with whom appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora is free to pursue the matter. Nevertheless, in so far as the DOPT is concerned, it is now established that even though the letter from the Planning Commission had been received, it appears to have been ignored. Moreover, inasmuch as the RTI is concerned, it would appear that both the then CPIO Shri Shaukat Ali and Appellate Authority Shri Ojha, DS have given incorrect and misleading information to appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora.
Shri Shaukat Ali, Under Secretary, DOPT will, therefore, show cause as to why he should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for knowingly giving incomplete and misleading information to appellant Ms. Hiteshi Arora. He will do so through a written statement, to be submitted to us by or before 26th October, 2009. The appeal is allowed to this limited extent Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 24.9.2009 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 24.9.2009 7