Central Information Commission
Mr. Sat Prakash Tyagi vs Delhi Jal Board on 5 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000170/3090
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000170
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sat Prakash Tyagi,
House No. 38, Tyagi Mohalla,
Chhatter Pur, New Delhi-110074.
Respondent : PIO,
Delhi Jal Board, Office of the Secretary; RTI Cell, Varunalaya Phase-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2008 PIO replied : 19/11/2008 First appeal filed on : 17/12/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 15/01/2009 Second Appeal filed on : --Jan. 2009
The appellant had asked in his RTI application for Action taken report on the complaint dated 29.05.2006 & 22.08.2006. Date of appointment of Anil Kumar Tyagi as J.E. in Delhi Jal Board. Whether it is fact that Anil Kumar Tyagi was temporarily appointed as work Mistry in Delhi Jal Board and later on regularized / promoted. Whether Anil Kumar Tyagi, J.E. had been appointed as J.E. in Delhi Jal Board while criminal case registered against him in the year of 1995. The departmental action being / to be taken against said Anil Kumar Tyagi on revelation of the above facts already in the knowledge of the deptt. Vide applications/complaints dated 29.05.2006 and 22.08.2006 cited above.
S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. Action taken report on the Both these complaints are under investigation.
enclosed complaint dated 29.05.2006 & 22.08.2006.
2. Whether it is fact that Anil Does not relate to Vigilance section.
Kumar Tyagi was temporarily appointed as work Mistry in Delhi Jal Board and later on regularized / promoted. The date of his regularization / promotion in the above post may be intimated.
3. Date of appointment of Anil Does not relate to Vigilance section.
Kumar Tyagi as J.E. in Delhi Jal Board.
4. Copy of Police verification Does not relate to Vigilance section.
report got conducted at the time of his appointment on regularization.
5. Whether the department is Yes. Department is aware........
aware that the said Anil Kumar Tyagi was involved in three criminal cases registered and investigated against him.
6. Whether Anil Kumar Tyagi, J.E. Sh. Anil Tyagi, J.E. informed on 20.06.1995 about had been appointed as J.E. in the criminal cases registered against him- (a) Delhi Jal Board while criminal U/Sec. 188 IPC & (b) U/Sec. 323/452/506 IPC case registered against him in (ii) on 10.10.95 informed about his arrest for 21 the year of 1995. hrs., however, reference of the case was not given.
He was also informed about previous cases but references were not given.
(iii) On 22.12.1997 informed about three criminal cases pending against him. Case references not given.
(iv) On 11.04.00 informed about three cases (a) Case u/s. 452/506/323/34 IPC PS Mehrauli, (b) FIR No.366/93 u/s. 188 IPC PS Najafgarh & (C ) FIR No. 303/95 PS Mehrauli.
(5) On 13.10.2003 informed about pendency of two criminal cases (a) U/Sec.
452/506/323/34 IPS PS Mehrauli & (b) FIR No. 303/95 PS Mehrauli.
(vi) On 25.03.2004 informed about pendency of two criminal case (a) FIR No. 303/95 PS Mehrauli & (ii) FIR No. 134/95 PS Mehrauli.
(vii) On 31.07.2007 informed about registration of total three cases (a) FIR No. 366/93 PS Najafgarh,
(b) FIR No. 134/95 PS Mehrauli & (c ) Fir No. 303/95 PS Mehrauli and pendency of only one case as on dated i.e. FIR No. 303/95.
7. Copy of rule under which he has Does not related to vigilance section.
been appointed as J.E. in Delhi Jal Board while criminal case was still pending against him.
8. Whether the case of Anil Kumar Vigilance Deptt. Is not aware of the contents of Tyagi is covered under the Judgment mentioned in this Para. judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on October 4, 1996 in Sushil Kumar case in Civil Appeal No. 13231 of 1996 arising out SLP No. 5340 of 1996.
9. Whether it is fact that Anil As above Para 6.
Kumar Tyagi has concealed the facts from the Deptt. About his involvement in criminal cases registered against him as mentioned in the enclosed application and copies of FIRs already sent to the Directorate of Vigilance, Delhi Jal Board.
10. The departmental action being / The FIR No. 303/95 is still pending before the to be taken against said Anil court of law. If Sh. Anil Kumar Tyagi will be Kumar Tyagi on revelation of convicted in that case the action as applicable on the above facts already in the DJB employees will be taken against him. Rest of knowledge of the deptt. Vide the reply is mentioned in Pare 1 above. applications/complaints dated 29.05.2006 and 22.08.2006 cited above.
The Fist Appellate Authority Ordered:
"I have gone through the appeal filed by the appellant. While sufficient information has been furnished to the appellant, he is unsatisfied with the state of progress in the matter pending before the Vigilance Department. However, this is not a matter to be decided by the RTI Act. Representative from Vigilance Department has informed me that the matter regarding concealment of facts is being processed. This being so if the appellant has any further inquiry in this matter, he may contact Vigilance Department to know the progress."
Relevant facts emerging during hearing The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Sat Prakash Tyagi Respondent: Dr. Bipin Bihari PIO Most of the information has been provided, but the following is missing:
1. Copy of the letter from Anil Kumar Tyagi informing DJB about the cases against him.
2. The chronology of events of the investigations.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information described above to the appellant before 20 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 5 May 2009 (For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)