Central Information Commission
Mr. M P Srivastava vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 2 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002521/10274
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002521
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M.P. Srivastava
Urmila Bhavan, Road No. 14A
East Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh
Patna 800020
Respondent : Mr. Amit Vashist
RPFC - II & CPIO Employees Provident Fund Organisation Head Office, 14-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 RTI application filed on : 23/06/2010 PIO replied : 06/08/2010 First appeal filed on : 02/08/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 09/09/2010 Information Sought:-
1. Total number of complaints received in the Vigilance Directorate (Headquarters) of the EPFO against the officers belonging to Group B and Group A pertaining to procedural lapses, committing omissions and commissions, rampant corruptions, nepotism and other irregularities during the period from 01/01/2000 to 30/06/2010 Cadre wise and region wise.
2. Out of the cases referred at Sl. No. 1, how many case were/are investigated and actions taken against the erring officials and how many cases have been dropped for lack of evidence along with the names of the authorities on whose orders the cases have been dropped during the period from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2010
3. The date wise events/actions taken-from the date of the receipt of the complaints to the present date-on the complaints received against Sri S Bhattacharjee, RPFC II/RPFC-I for committing irregularities/procedural lapses/corrupt practices in respect of M/s Air view Hotel, Siliguri, M/s Bokaro Steel plant, M/s Shyam Bin Works.
4. The date wise actions taken on the complaints received against Shri A K Lal RPFC I relating to decoding establishments, concluding 7A proceedings in respect of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant by extending help to the establishments malafidely, and protecting the officials of Bihar region who have drawn false LTC claim in Bihar region-Copy of the investigation report of the DD(Vig) and the report of the committee headed by Sri K C Pandey, ACC on decoding of the establishments along with file notes of CVO/CPFC may be provided.
5. Details of actions taken date wise against Sri P D Sinha, RPFC-I for shielding officials of Bihar region who have drawn LTC bills-already proved in the departmental enquiry.
6. Details of actions taken for recommending appointment to non-eligible candidates against Sri G Suchindranath, RPFC-II (Vig)-date wise
7. Details of actions taken against Sri Subrata Kumar, RPFC-II, Ranchi for causing delay in deciding the matter relating to penal damage under Section 14B of the Act in respect of M/s Shyam Bin, Pakur and demanding Rs 25,000/ as bribe from M/s N P Constructions Bokaro-date wise.Page 1 of 9
8. Details of action taken against the enforcement officers of Regional Office, Patna SRO Bhagalpur for extending help to the contractors establishments with regard to allotment of code numbers on fake documents-in violation of CPFC circulars especially in the light of recent trap by the CBI in the office of the Regional Office, Patna-Name of all those enforcement officers who have recommended for allotment of Code numbers to the contractors establishments since January 2006 to date.
9. In how many cases of complaints received in this Vigilance Directorate Schedule of time limits as prescribed by CVC circular no. 000IVGL/l8 dated 23" May 2000 have been followed and in how many cases schedule of time have not been followed with reasons thereof in respect the complaints as mentioned as SI No I above, In how many cases actions have been taken against the officials for not following schedule of time limits in conducting investigations and departmental enquiries, if no action has been taken the reasons there of
10. The total number of cases in respect of which investigations have been completed but the Vigilance Directorate/Competent Authority have not taken decisions as on 30.6.10-cadre wise and region wise with reasons for such abnormal delay.
11. In how many cases the CVO, EPFO has scrutinized transfers and posting orders which prima facie appear against the norms prescribed especially on receipt of the complaints and also otherwise sou-motto during the period from Jan2006 to 31 May 2010. If no scrutiny has been made, the reasons thereof.
12. The details of the actions taken against Sri V P Ramaiah, ACC, HR. Sri Trilok Chand, ACC (Kanpur) (retired) and Sri Kumar Rohit, RPFC-II for committing procedural lapses in the matter of payment of retrial benefits to Sri A. Vishwanathan, Ex-CPFC without obtaining Vigilance Clearance Certificate before retirement.
13. Whether CVO, is one of the committee member for making transfer and posting in respect of Group A Officers-copy of circular to be provided.
14. In how many cases the recommendations of the DD(Vig) of the Zones for initiating departmental proceedings received in the directorate from 1st Jan 2000 to 31.5.2010 have been accepted-in how many cases not accepted- zone wise be provided.
15. The copy of the orders of the competent authority to post Ms Uma Mandal, RPFC-II, Sri G. Suchindranath, RPFC-II, Sri K Ganesh babu, RPFC-I in the Vigilance Directorate over and above the sanctioned strength.
16. During the tenure of Sri P.C. Pati as D.D.(Vig). East Zone Kolkata - how many complaints were received, in his office , how many case were disposed off- how many cases were kept pending, how many establishments he had visited, how many ties he had visited Vigilance Directorate, New Delhi with dates?
The details of all complaints received against Sri P.C. Pati, D.D.(Vigilance) and the actions taken thereon date wise and allegation wise.
17. Attested copies of Annual property return submitted by Sri P.C. Pati since the date of his appointment as APFC till date.
18. Names and designation of all the officials i.e. from Group C to Group A against whom departmental proceedings under conduct rules have been initiated for committing procedural lapse in their works and in how many cases punishments have been imposed during the period from 1.1.2000 to 31.5.2010.
19. Copy of all circulars which define procedural lapses in the EPFO which warrant departmental action under conduct rules.
20. In how many cases the CVC has forwarded complaint to the CVO, EPFO for investigation/taking actions during the last three years as on date and in how many cases investigations have been completed/investigations have not been completed and the cases lying pending in the Vigilance Directorate.
21. In how many cases Ministry of Labour has asked the CVO, EPFO to investigate on the various complaints received from the different quarters during the last three years and the details of those cases which art still pending in the Vigilance Directorate.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
1. Total number of complaints received in the Vigilance Wing of EPFO during the period from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2010 is not available in the directorate. However, as per available records the total Page 2 of 9 number of complaints received in Vigilance Directorate during the period from 1.1.07 to 1.6.2010 is
443. No separate data is held exclusively for Vigilance Directorate, Head quarters and this figure includes the complaints received in the four Zonal Vigilance Directorate of EPFO.
2. The applicant is informed that all the registered complaints are investigated in individual and separate files till the logical end of the matter in each file. No data is created and maintained in the format/classification as sought by the applicant. The information is compiled for the purposes of the monthly and annual return of CVC. The copies of available, yearly return for the period from 2007 to 2009 and monthly return of Jan, 2010 and May, 2010 submitted to CVC were already provided to the applicant on 15.7.2010 in compliance of CIC decision number CIC/SG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010. The said returns submitted to the CVC includes the number of cases disposed off.
Hence, the information, to the extent available is considered to be already furnished.
3. The applicant was allowed to inspect the Files of M/s Airivew Hotel, Siliguri, M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, M/s Shyam Bin Works on 15.7 2010 in compliance of CIC decision number CICISG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010. During the inspection the applicant has noted the requisite details. As the said inspection is subsequent to the current application, the information is treated as already furnished.
4. Complaint against Shri A K Lal, RPFC I:
(i) Relating to decoding establishment:
a. Consequent on the receipt of the complaint, the matter was got investigated through Dy. Director (Vigilance), South Zone b. Basing on the report of Dy. Director (Vigilance), South Zone, the memorandum dated 28.7.09 has been issued, calling for his comments/reply. As the investigation is considered to be still going on, copy of the report of Dy. Director (Vigilance), South Zone report as well as the report of committee headed by the Addl. CPFC are denied under the provision of Section 8(1) (h) as the undersigned is of the considered opinion that parting of this information at this stage would impede the process of investigation.
(ii) Concluding 7A proceedings in respect of M/s Bokaro Steel Plants:
a. Consequent on the receipt of complaint the matter was got investigated through Dy. Director (Vigilance), South Zone b. As the proceeding u/s 7C are still going on, and a final view on the matter is yet to be taken, copy of the report of the Dy. Director (Vigilance), South Zone is denied under the provision of Section 8 (1)(h) as the undersigned is of the considered opinion that parting of this information at this stage would impede the process of investigation.
5. Details of action taken against Shri PD Sinha, RPFC-I for shilding officials of Bihar region who have drawn LTC Bills:
(a) Consequent on receipt of complaint, investigation was carried through Dy. Director (Vigilance), South Zone.
(b)The report of DD(Vigilance), South Zone indicated that three officials were found erring.
(c) Accordingly, the RPFC 1, RO, Bihar was directed to:Page 3 of 9
i) initiate major penalty proceeding against three officials fix responsibility for misplacing the original records on the persons concerned.
(d) The chargesheet has been issued by RPFC I, Bihar to three officials.
e) The records of the Vigilance Directorate are not indicative of any action taken against Shri.P D Sinha.
6. The applicant was allowed to inspect the Files Vig X(14)07 on 15.7.20 10 in compliance of CIC decision number CIC/SG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010. During the inspection the applicant:
has noted the requisite details. As the said inspection is subsequent to the current application, the information is treated as already furnished.
7. The related files are not readily available and as such the information would be furnished shortly after tracing the files.
8. The complaint in the matter is still under investigation, hence and as such the details of Enforcement Officer responsible for the alleged lapses are considered to be not available as on date.
9. The applicant is informed that all the registered complaints are investigated in individual and separate files to the logical end in each file. No data is created and maintained to provide the information sought by the applicant. The information is compiled for the purposes of the monthly and annual return of CVC. The copies of available yearly return for the period from 2007 to 2009 and monthly return of Jan, 2010 and May, 2010 submitted to CVC was already provided to the applicant on 15.7.2010 in compliance of CIC decision number CIC/SG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010.
10. The applicant is informed that all the registered complaints are investigated in individual and separate files to the logical end in each file, No data is created and maintained to provide the information sought by the applicant. The information is compiled for the purposes of the monthly and annual return of CVC. The copies of available yearly return for the period from 2007 to 2009 and monthly return of Jan, 2010 and May, 2010 submitted to CVC was already provided to the applicant on 15.7.2010 in compliance of CIC decision number CIC/SG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010.
11. The Vigilance Directorate Headquarters does not hold any information on this point. Hence no information is provided.
12. The files of Vigilance Directorate do not indicate any action having been taken against Shri V P Ramaiah, ACC, HR, Shri Trilok Chand, ACC, Kanpur(Retd) and Sri Kurnar Rohit, RPFC II on the matter.
13. The information sought at SI No. 13 has been transferred to HRM Section for providing you information vide this office letter number \'ig XXX(2)2010/RTI/EZ/2585-2586 dated 9.7.2010 under copy to you.
14. The applicant is informed that all the registered complaints are investigated in individual and separate files to the logical end in each file. No data is created and maintained to provide the information sought by the applicant. The information is compiled for the purposes of the monthly and annual return of CVC. The copies of available yearly return for the period from 2007 to 2009 and monthly return of Jan, 2010 and May, 2010 submitted to CVC was already provided to the applicant on 15.7.20 10 in compliance of CIC decision number CIC/SG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010.
Page 4 of 915. The information sought at SI No. 15 has been transferred to HRM Section for providing you information vide this. office letter number Vig XXX(2)2010/IRTI/EZ/2585-2586 dated 9.7.2010 under copy to you.
16. For the information relating to the first part i.e. "During the tenure of Sri P C Pall as DD(Vig), East Zone, Kolkata-how many complaints were received, in his office, how many case were disposed off- how many cases were kept pending, how many establishments he had visited, how many times he had visited Vigilance Directorate, New Delhi with dates?" the applicant is advised to approach CPIO/DD(Vig.) East Zone Kolkata as the said information is not available with Vigilance Directorate, Head Quarter, New Delhi. With regard to second part of the information "The details of all complaints received against Sri P C Pati, DD(Vigilance) and action taken thereon datewise and allegation wise, it is informed that two complaint has been received against Shri P C Pati as indicated below:
Sl. Nature of complaint Status The complaint was got investigated through DD (Vig), East Zone. As investigation did not
1. PIDR (copy enclosed) establish allegation the case closed with concurrence of CVC.
Consequent on the receipt of complaint Complaint of Shri A K Singh regarding non-
2. comments from Shri P C Pati has been called returning of Rs. 10,000)- (copy enclosed) which are still awaited.
17. The attested copies of annual property returns of Shri P C Pati as per records available in the office are enclosed.
18. The applicant is informed that all the registered complaints are investigated in individual and separate files to the logical end in each file. No date is created and maintained to provide the information sought by the applicant. The information is compiled for the purposes of the monthly and annual return of CVC. The copies of available yearly return for the period from 2007 to 2009 and monthly return of jan, 2010 and May, 2010 submitted to CVC was already provided to the applicant on 15.7.2010 in compliance of CIC decision number CIC/SG/A/2010/001357/8366 dated 1.7.2010.
19. This issue is transferred to all the CPJO's of the functional wings of Head Office vide this office letter of even number dated 9.7.2010. To the extent of Vigilance Wing, copies of following circulars are enclosed.
(i) No. Vig X(40)01/2004(A) dated 16.11.2001
(ii) No. Vig )OCV(10)9913426-343.1 dated 30.10.03
(iii) No. Vig XXV(2)2000/1623 dated 31.3.2008
(iv) No. Vig XXV(2)200013075 dated 30.6.2008
(v) No. Vig )GU(10)06/1488 dated 20.3.2008
(vi) No. Vig XXV(2)2000/1609 dated 28.3.2008
(vii) No. Vig V1(14)2006/1 630 dated 3 1.3.2008
(viii) No. VigX(11)2008/3208 dated 10.7.2008
(ix) No. Vig XXV(2)2000/320 dated 30.1.2004
20. The information/details are provided as per annual report/monthly report submitted to CVC:
Complaints forwarded by CVC and disposal/Pending details(as on 31.12.2007) Page 5 of 9 Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 16 31 47 6 41 Others 37 107 144 21 123 Complaints (as on 31.12.2008) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 41 47 88 18 70 Others 123 62 185 38 147 Complaints (as on 31.12.2009) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 70 23 93 60 33 Others 147 83 230 147 83 Complaints (Jan, 2010) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 33 4 37 2 35 Others 83 11 94 5 89 Complaints (Feb 2010) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 35 2 37 6 31 Others 89 5 94 3 91 Complaint (March, 2010) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 31 1 32 5 27 Others 91 9 100 4 96 Complaints (April, 2010) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance CVC 27 1 28 1 27 Others 96 43 139 14 125 Complaints (May, 2010) Source Opening Balance Received during the year Total Disposed Balance Page 6 of 9 CVC 27 2 29 1 28 Others 125 12 137 2 135
21. The total number of cases in which MOLE has asked the CVO, EPFO to investigate the complaint during the last three years is 28. The details of pending cases are as follows:
Sl. Name of the officer against whom the Gist of complaints No. complaint has been made
1. Shri Amit Vashist, RPFC II Acquiring regular LLB degree from Bhopal by wrong means
2. Shri Manish Agnihotri, RPFC II Harassment for extortion, misuse of power in a 7A matter.
3. Shri ML Nagora, RPFC and Shri MG Issue false affidavit in favour of Vakharia, employer
4. Shri E L P Nair, APFC and Shri A B Favouring employer in disposing off Bhonsale, APFC property at Mumbai
5. EPF office at Maharashtra (complaint by Complaint of corruption in 7A Shilesh Kesav Kale)
6. Complaint purportedly made by Shri Kishan Irregularities in purchase of computer Chand and laptops
7. Complaint of Shri Rishi Deo Swami, Corruption in EPFO Meerut
8. Complaint of Shri Ramakant Shukla Delay in release of PPO by Shri Jagmohan and Regional Office, Kanpur
9. Complaint of Shri Radhey Complaint against Shri Jagmohan and Shyam Kureel against Shri others Jagmohan and others
10. Shri R Vedanayaki, SS EPF, Tambaram Criminal misconduct
11. Shri R Samal Shown undue favour in r/o his niece, in the appointment of MTA
12. Shri Aj it Kulshethta Sheltering the erring officals in roof treatment amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs as well as purchase of poor quality furniture Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"As regards the first application dated 12.4.2010, the disposal made by CPIO vide loiter dated 16.7.2010, 1 observe that the CPIO has given a reasoned decision denying the information as sought for by the applicant and I concur with the views of the CPIO.
As regards the second application dated 23.6.2010, 1 observe that the application was disposed by CPIO on 6.8.2010. whereas the appeal was filed on 2.8.2010. Therefore the points related to the second application are not examined as the applicant would have received the reply after filing the appeal. However, the applicant is granted liberty to appeal against the same, in case he is not satisfied with the CPIO's reply."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Page 7 of 9Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO & FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. M.P. Srivastava on video conference from NIC-Patna Studio; Respondent: Mr. Amit Vashist, RPFC - II & CPIO; Mr. Gautam, RPFC-II (Vigilance Directorate);
The Appellant has sought information about the process of investigation on a complaint which he had made about five years back about decoding by Mr. A. K. Lal, RPFC (Ranchi) and that he had under assessed the dues of Bokaro Steel Plant by about 10 cores as per report made by the Appellant. The Appellant had also alleged that the said officer had protected fraudulent withdrawals in LTC by Bihar Cadre Officials. Based on the Appellant's complaint an investigation has been started five years back but it has been claimed that the investigation is over but a view has to be taken on the final outcome.
The Respondents has refused to part with this information on the ground until the final view is taken the investigation process continues and any disclosure at this stage will be premature and may impede the process of investigation. Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and Section-3 categorically states "subject to the provisions of this Act all citizens shall have right to information;" As per the provisions of the Act disclosure is the norm and denial an exception. If a citizen seeks information under the RTI Act a denial of his fundamental right can only be justified based on the exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO has stated that the investigation was started five years back and yet a final view has not been taken. No specific reasons have been given to show how disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Infact it has been admitted that the investigation is over. The Commission notes that perhaps some higher officer is refusing to come to a conclusion based on the investigation report. Even if the Commission accepts the plea of the PIO that the investigation is not complete no case has been made out to show how the process of investigation would be impeded. It is a very sad reality of the way Government offices function that the excuse of investigating something becomes an endless exercise to ensure that no wrong doing is exposed and punished. It cannot be in the interest of any Organization or Nation to continue the farce of a permanent investigation thereby defeating the very purpose of citizens complaining about wrong doing. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts, "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;". No case has been made out to conclusively show that any investigation would be impeded. The PIO infact has said that investigation may be impeded. A mere apprehension of an impediment cannot be grounds based on which a citizen's fundamental right can be denied. Infact it is in everybody's interest that results of investigations are declared as soon as possible and in case a very tardy investigation process is being followed public authorities should suo-moto declare the progress of such investigations every quarter.
The Commission therefore rejects the contention of the PIO that the information can be denied.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. Gautam, RPFC-II (Vigilance Directorate) is directed to ensure that the information sought by the Appellant is sent to him before 15 December 2010. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 02 December 2010 Page 8 of 9 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ) Page 9 of 9