Central Information Commission
Mravinash Kumar vs Gnctd on 29 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/000371
Avinash Kumar Vs. Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI:2852014 FA: 972014 Hearing:18062015
Second appeal: 232015 Show cause issued Decision: 27062015
Parties Present:
The appellant is present along with Mr. Virender. The Public authority is represented by
Dr. V.K.Hari, MO and Mr. M.S.Premi.
FACTS:
2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for information on following points:
a. Whether the confidential letters in favour of any doctor/employee can be opened by the medical superintendent of this hospital. If "Yes" copy of the rules/regulations.
b. Whether the letters in favour of doctor/employee are opened by the medical superintendent of this hospital.
c. Copy of government rules under which the personal letters in favour of any doctor/employee can be opened by the medical superintendent.
d. Whether all the letters in favour of any doctor/employee are forwarded to the vigilance officer.
CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 1
e. Information regarding the total number of cases forwarded by M.S to Vigilance
Officer since last 5 years in this hospital.
f. Provide the name of doctors and employees of this hospital whose letters were
forwarded by M.S to vigilance officer of this hospital since 5 years.
g. Provide the date form which Dr Amit Sharma is holding the charge of Vigilance officer, etc.
3. Having received no information within the prescribed period, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information by the PIO and FAA, appellant approached the Commission.
DECISION:
4. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that he is a whistle blower complainant. He wrote a complaint to the CVC regarding corrupt practices in the respondent hospital by Dr Surendra singh (CMO, NFSG) a doctor holding seat of chairman, Medical Board. Relevant extracts of the complaint is reproduced below:
1. It is to inform you that sanitation services of Aruna Asif ali hospital, GNCTD is outsourced in favour of M/s Kamal Sanitation works since 29.03.2011 to till date for Rs 1,99,824 inclusive of all taxes per month and as per the tender terms and conditions. The authorities of this hospital are paying Rs 2,20,406 i.e by adding all taxes in the approved rates. This way hospital is paying Rs. 20,582 per month and Rs 5,76,296 extra to the contractor till date.
2. As per the terms and conditions of sanitation services, the sanitation material will be provided by the contractor even though a lot of sanitation material was purchase in June 2011 like Brooms, Napathellibe balls, finit, fummy floor solution, multipurpose cleaning solutions, vims, bleaching powder etc and still available in the hospital.
3. One item known for floor cleaning is fumy floor solution which was purchased 250 cans for Rs 2990 in June 2011 when 638 cans are still available in the hospital store. About Rs.
22,42,500 plus 12.5 % VAT i.e Total Rs 25,22,812 were spent on the purchase of total 750 cans of Fumy Floor solution from 16.04.2010 to 29.06.2011.
4. There is another sanitation item called multipurpose cleaning solution which is used for floor cleaning purpose was purchased about 1800 cans from 16.04.2010 to 27.06.2011 for total Rs 12,78,235 including taxes. Purchasing quantity in June 2011 was 1000 at rate of Rs CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 2 720 per can and total purchase amounted to Rs 8,10,000 including taxes. Manufacturing date is 05/2011, batch no. M 11 and expiry date is 2 years from the date of manufacturing.
5. In the month of June 2013, total 450 cans got expired and this hospital lost Rs 3.24.000 in form of excess purchasing which was avoidable.
6. This purchasing was done from other hospital rates and the supplier was from out of Delhi i.e G.N enterprises, Dehradun. This way, Delhi Government revenue loss stands at Rs. 90,000.
7. It is rumour in the hospital that Dr Surendra Singh, the then purchase officer had stolen this file no. F31(2)/GCNC/General Store/AAAGH/1112/ of purchasing of General store items from this hospital to hide his corrupt activities in the purchase of general store items. This file contains all purchase details of general store items for the financial year 201112 for around Rs 80 lakhs to 1 crore or more.
8. Information of this missing file is also submitted by new purchase officer to the M.S, Aruna Asif Ali Govt. Hospital. Except issuing a letter to all the departments of hospital to search the file, no necessary action was initiated by the MS. He is trying to cover all the issues."
5. Appellant stated that his complaint related to malpractices in purchase of medical material like Fumy floor solution, Multipurpose cleaning solution etc. He stated that after the receipt of the complaint, the CVC had sent a letter to him seeking the identity. The envelope containing that letter is superscribed as "Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informer Resolution (PIDPI)". In spite of this envelope was opened by the then Medical Superintendent. Dr Ashok Jaiswal (Medical Superintendent) summoned him on 22.08.2013 to clarify regarding the complaint, that is, whether he had filed the complaint or not and against whom the complaint was filed, in the presence of Dr Amit Sharma (Radiologist). Later on the person against whom the complaint was lodged, joined the meeting, there was a very long session of discussion, arguments in the room of M.S. On 23.08.2013, the letter from CVC was handed to over to him in original through the register. As a result of this disclosure, the appellant was put to embarrassment and also punished by a transfer from the respondent hospital to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi vide letter dated 28.11.2013. It was uploaded on the government website on 02.12.2013, along with relieving order w.e.f 03.12.2013. This transfer was done when the election related code of conduct was in force in Delhi. He complained to the Secretary, CVC on 03.12.2013 about harassment from authorities of Health and Family welfare, Department of Govt. of NCT for CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 3 being a whistle blower. On 04.12.2013 he wrote to Principal Secretary of Health and Family Welfare department, GNCTD seeking cancellation of his transfer order. He had written letter to Chief Minister on 03.01.2014. He was not provided the requisite information for his RTI application. He, therefore, requested the Commission, to issue direction to the Public Authority to provide the copy of all cases of corruption forwarded by the MS to Vigilance Officer of the hospital in the last 5 years, besides information about inquiry in the 5 years. He insisted on imposing penalty and sought compensation.
6. The PIO submitted that they have furnished information available with them, but essentially, the then MS was only office competent to answer why he opened the sealed envelope of appellant. The respondent also submitted that his complaint was inquired into and the inquiry report was submitted to the Principal Secretary (Health), Delhi Government, as a result of which disciplinary action was recommended against three doctors, they were also chargesheeted.
7. The Commission finds merit in the petition of the appellant and there appears that he was put to troubles because his identity and name was unnecessarily revealed. The public authority should have taken action against such wrong. They have a duty to protect the identity of the whistleblower, especially a serious complaint was made against corruption in the hospital and this further reiterated by Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 and the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution [http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02ser/371_4_2013AVDIII 16062014.pdf]. Relevant provisions of Whistleblowers Protection Act are extracted below:
Section 11. Safeguards against victimisation:
(1) The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made a disclosure or rendered CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 4 assistance in inquiry under this Act. (2) If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation:
Provided that the Competent Authority shall, before giving any such direction to the public authority or public servant, give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and the public authority or public servant, as the case may be: Provided further that in any such hearing, the burden of proof that the alleged action on the part of the public authority is not victimisation, shall lie on the public authority. (3) Every direction given under subsection (2) by the Competent Authority shall be binding upon the public servant or the public authority against whom the allegation of victimisation has been proved. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the power to give directions under subsection (2), in relation to a public servant, shall include the power to direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure, to the status quo ante. (5) Any person who wilfully does not comply with the direction of the Competent Authority under subsection (2), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to thirty thousand rupees Section 13 Protection of identity of Complainant -
The Competent Authority shall, notwithstanding any law for the time being in force, conceal, as required under this Act, the identity of the complainant and the documents or information furnished by him, for the purposes of enquiry CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 5 under this Act, unless so decided otherwise by the Competent Authority itself or it became necessary to reveal or produce the same by virtue of the order of the court
8. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, finds that there is a delay of 381 days in furnishing the information to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for not furnishing the information within the prescribed period and why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for the hardship undergone by him in delaying the information. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further directs the PIO to furnish information as sought by the appellant in his written submission presented during hearing today, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The Commission requires the public authority to conduct an enquiry into the alleged opening of the envelope and disclosure of identity of whistleblower and decide appropriate action against concerned medical superintendent besides considering him to provide the compensation and cancelling the penal transfer within 45 days of receipt of this order.
10. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 6 Address of parties
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of Delhi Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, 5Rajpur Road, Delhi110006
2. Dr. Avinash Kumar, B3/4E, Gasta Complex, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110063
3. Dr. Ashok Jaiswal, the PIO, AAAGH C/o The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of Delhi Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, 5Rajpur Road, Delhi110006
4. Dr. SK Sharma, Medical Superintendent C/o The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of Delhi Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, 5Rajpur Road, Delhi110006 CIC/SA/A/2015/000371 Page 7