Central Information Commission
Vinita vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 17 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/YA/C/2016/900056
Date of Hearing : 28.06.2017
Date of Decision : 28.06.2017
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 28.07.2017
Date of Final Decision : 29.08.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Dr. Vinita Gupta
Respondent : Senior Administrative Officer,
AIIMS, Rishikesh
Through: Harish Thapliyal PIO
Sh. Rakesh Kumar -Sr. AO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.08.2015
PIO replied on : 01.12.2015
First Appeal filed on : 02.11.2015
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 10.03.2016
Show Cause Decision
Background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 17.08.2015, the complaint sought copy of proceedings and report of the enquiry committee in respect of a complaint regarding the plagiarism was filed to the Director, AIIMS Rishikesh dated 09.02.2015, vide letter no. AIIMS/RIS/Oph/2015/18 and a copy of letter dated 31.03.2015 no. Dean/AIIMS/RIS/15-80/1886 regarding withdrawal of project titled "Awareness regarding common childhood ocular problems amongst parents visiting pediatric OPD in tertiary level hospital in the State of Uttarakhand". The CPIO replied on 01.12.2015, furnished the information /document to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not adjudicate in the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission. After perusal of record, the Commission sent to the CPIO, CPIO, AIIMS, Rishikesh vide letter dated 20.02.2017 to conduct an enquiry into the matter. The Commission received an enquiry report vide letter dated 17.04.2017.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Stating the factual backdrop of the case, the Complainant stated that she had provided guidance to a student for preparation and submission of a particular project, as titled above and at the stage of submission, the name of the Complainant was replaced by some other doctor's name. The project bearing the name of some other doctor was submitted and subsequently the project was even withdrawn at the behest of the Dean, who was also the cause of replacement of the name of the Complainant from the project. The appellant having been thus made a victim of plagiarism filed a complaint to the Director, AIIMS, Rishikesh on 09.02.2015. Through the RTI application she had sought information relating to her said complaint and related communication. In response to her quest for information, the Complainant was provided the Enquiry Report but none of the supporting documents were provided to her.
On receipt of the complaint, the Commission initiated an Enquiry, which revealed that the information sought related to office of the Dean of the Institute who was sent a letter dated 16.11.2015 to provide the desired information to the appellant. The Dean, Dr. Latika Mohan vide letter dated 26.11.2015 sent report of Enquiry Committee and copy of the letter dated 31.03.2015 which was sent to the appellant on 01.12.2015. It further transpires from perusal of the Enquiry Report that the said Dr. Latika Mohan did not deny subsequent inspection of the files in her custody, but did not specify any time or date for the same. It is further noted that the said Dr. Mohan has since relinquished the post of Dean of the Institute w.e.f 23.08.2016 and had handed over charge to Sr. Administrative Officer Sh. Rakesh Kumar. The current Dean Dr. Surekha Kishore by her letter dated 09.03.2017 has confirmed that she took over charge w.e.f 24.08.2016 but she denied being handed over any of the record by the Dr. Latika Mohan in relation to the documents sought by the Enquiry Officer. The Sr. Administrative Officer, Sh. Rakesh Kumar named by the erstwhile Dean, Dr. Latika Mohan confirmed by letter dated 05.04.2017 that he had received only ten pages relating to the subject file from Dr. Mohan on 23/24.01.2017.
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission, vide order dated 28.06.2017 held as follows:
"..the Commission finds this to be a very sordid case wherein the allegations of plagiarism levelled by the applicant indicate a sadistic and discouraging approach by the then Dean, Dr. Latika Mohan. Records reveal that she has not even handed over complete documents related to the subject file to her successor-in-office, Dr. Surekha Kishore. The Enquiry Report submitted by Prof. (Dr.) Mukesh Tripathi is thus found deficient and unsatisfactory. The Registry of this Bench is directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE upon Dr. Latika Mohan, currently posted as Head of the Department, AIIMS, for wilful obstruction in the dissemination of information which rightfully should have been provided to the Complainant, not only because she is entitled to the same under RTI Act but also because the Complainant as a matter of natural right over the information. Dr. Latika Mohan is directed to explain why no penal action should be initiated against her for violation of provisions of the RTI Act by deliberate non furnishing of information. Reply to the Show Cause should reach the Commission atleast a week before hearing of the Show Cause case.
The Complainant having authored the project, has intellectual and proprietary right over the information sought by her and accordingly, the documents enclosed with the Enquiry Report should be provided to her. For this purpose, the instant complaint is converted into a second appeal for providing efficacious remedy to the applicant. The current custodian of information Dr. Surekha Kishore is directed to ensure the information in the form of enclosures of the Enquiry report should be provided to the applicant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. A report of compliance of the order shall also be filed by the Respondent within a week thereafter.
Show Cause Hearing: 28.07.2017
1. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Commission, the Noticee -
Dr. Latika Mohan, the then PIO/Dean, AIIMS, Rishikesh submitted her reply dated 14.07.2017 narrating the entire sequence of events as they had occurred, at the relevant point of time. Giving a factual background of this case regarding the submission of an undergraduate student project proposal to ICMR for approval, she has stated that undergraduate students are encouraged to do small research projects by the ICMR, through the Short Term Studentship (STS) projects scheme, for which each student is awarded Rs 10,000/-
on completion of the project. All students interested in applying for the project in 2015 were asked to come with a faculty guide and discuss the project proposal with the Noticee herein, who was then working as the DEAN, as the feasibility of doing the project in AIIMS Rishikesh had to be established before sending to ICMR. Relevant extracts of the Noticee's submissions are as follows:
"....c. On the last day of submission of the Project proposal (i.e. 27/1/2015) the undersigned was approached by the student Mr Saurabh Kathuria for clearance to submit the project. At the time his selected guide, Dr Vinita Gupta was on unapproved leave, ............ Since no Guide was available to discuss the project, the undersigned expressed her inability to sign and forward it to ICMR in the course of performing her duty. The Student persisted in the matter, and the undersigned told him that she can't recommend the project in the absence of a guide to explain the feasibility of the project. It being the last date of submission, Mr S Kathuria thereafter approached Dr Anupam, another faculty of the same specialty who agreed to help the student, as it was the very last date for submission and the project was submitted by the student by changing his guide.
d. It is clarified that this was a student project proposal and the intellectual property is deemed to be that of the student. The student requested in writing that he be allowed to change the guide and the other faculty guide accepted it, meaning only to help the student. This is recorded in the written documents a matter of record.
e. Upon returning from leave, Dr Vinita Gupta made no effort to meet with or discuss the matter with the undersigned, but instead sent off letters directly to the Director AJIMS, to the Secretary MOHFW and to the Head (BMS) ICMR, disregarding channel of correspondence, in contravention to CCS rules, alleging "Plagiarism".
f. At this point Dr Anupam, who had thought that it was the students idea and project, in view of the controversy raised immediately requested to withdraw as guide from this project. The fact that she immediately resigned from being the guide even before the project was initiated shows that there was no attempt to plagiarism.
g. Dr Vinita Gupta never discussed the matter with the undersigned to resolve the issue. Neither she nor the student approached the undersigned for resolving the issue or discuss the issue with her colleague Dr Anupam. Therefore, the project had no guide at this point again which is a prerequisite for the submission of the project with ICMR.
h. A letter in response to Dr Vinita Gupta's letter on this matter was received from ICMR, following which the undersigned ordered an inquiry by the ethics committee......
i. The ethics committee reported the matter not to be one of plagiarism but an attempt to help the student to submit the project proposal. The Report of the Ethics Committee is a matter of Record and Hon'ble Commission may instruct the AIIMS Rishikesh Administration to produce the Report and all related documents which are the matter of record with the Admin office as on date. Even at this point also Dr Vinita Gupta did not attempt to have any direct meeting or submit any application at the time to show her willingness to continue the project. The undersigned asked for a meeting with her in good faith with the sole intention of resolving the issue and complete the formalities for submission of the project in the interest of the student to which she did not respond. Based on the report of the ethics committee and the controversy raised, and because Dr Anupam had resigned from being a guide, and lack of any direct communication at the time from Dr Vinita Gupta the proposal was withdrawn from ICMR for that year. All the aforementioned facts can be easily proved before Hon'ble Commission by asking the AIIMS Rishikesh Administration to produce the relevant documents which are the part of official records.
j. However the student was counselled by the undersigned and given the opportunity to do the project from AIIMS Rishikesh though local resources under the guidance of Dr Vinita Gupta. However Dr Vinita Gupta seemed not interested in the project or in resolving the issue but in continuing posing/pretending as an aggrieved party, her main objective seemed to bring discredit to the undersigned. She had embroiled the undergraduate student too in the controversy which was an embarrassment to the institution. The matter was taken up with the Director at the time Dr Raj Kumar and she was issued an advisory letter after due approval from the Director. ........
k. It is also clarified that at no point has the student Mr. Saurabh Kathuria complained about this matter. It is primarily the student project. In addition the project was never executed or published, so the question of plagiarism does not arise. It is still an "idea" and is still open for the study to be conducted...."
2. While answering about the RTI application, the Noticee clarified that:
" Reply in respect to RTI a. Upon receipt of the RTI under reference the information asked for by Dr Vinita Gupta was duly given and was never denied. The matter was a straightforward one and a copy of the ethics committee report was given to her as asked. She was never denied inspection of any records as asked. It is not understood what additional information she was seeking in the matter, which she alleges was denied to her.
b. As she was serving in the same institution, she was always having and given the opportunity to resolve the matter amicably with the undersigned, by directly approaching the undersigned. She was never denied the opportunity..."
3. The Noticee, Dr. Latika Mohan has further stated that "All Confidential files were handed over to the SAO Mr. Rakesh Kumar 23/1/2017 including the concerned file under orders of Director Dr. Sanjeev Mishra."
4. Dr. Latika Mohan has concluded her submissions with the following points:
"....1. The undersigned has no personal vendetta against Dr Vinita Gupta nor any sadistic attitude, but was merely discharging her duties as Dean and faculty in charge, by complying with the rules and regulations with a view to maintain good order in the institution.
2. The Project proposal was primarily the intellectual property of the student Mr Saurabh Kathuria (2013 MBBS batch) who has never made any complaints. The project has never been executed and can still be done by him or DrVinita Gupta as the case may be.
3. The ethics committee did not find it a case of Plagiarism, all actions were done only to help the student. It is a matter of record.
4. Official Documents asked for by Dr Vinita Gupta by RTI were never withheld or denied. However Dr Vinita Gupta has persistently been dissatisfied by the documents provided and has caused considerable harassment to the undersigned. She in addition did not even attempt to follow normal channels of communication within the institution that itself proves her bent of mind and approach to resolve the problem, if any.
5. At the time of the enquiry by the CIC on 20/02/2017 all the files including one regarding the Ethics committee report was in the custody of Sri Rakesh Kumar Senior Administrative officer. Confidential files were not handed over to Dr Surekha Kishore as she had Temporary Charge of Dean. Just for the information of the Hon'ble Commission, the apex structure of the institution has been reassigned to 4 Deans. She is Dean Academics now and this is a matter concerning research/discipline/ethics and she is not the custodian of these documents.
6. Dr Vinita Gupta is a known trouble maker and has been involved in several instances of indiscipline, erratic behaviour and poor professional conduct which is a matter of record. An independent inquiry into the matter was conducted at the institute, in which this matter under reference was also addressed. The documents related to this can be made available to Hon'ble Commission on its demand from the AIIMS Administration..."
5. On the other hand, the PIO has submitted an Inspection Report about the inspection of documents conducted by the appellant on 21.07.2017. The appellant has alleged that though inspection was provided to her a) File in which proceedings were held by IEC, did not contain any note sheets, no file number on it and documents were fabricated with multiple serial page numbers;
b) File no. AIIMS/15/116 revealed incomplete and tampered documents. The appellant has further claimed that serial numbers of the pages had been changed several times and re-numbered, typed copies of documents have been tampered and replaced with hand written comments etc. After inspection of records for an hour, the appellant sought photocopies of all the records inspected by her. The appellant has addressed a communication dated 25.07.2017 about the irregularities noted by her during the course of inspection of records. The appellant has alleged that the tampering and alteration of documents, fabrication etc occurred when the file/s concerned were in the custody of Dr. Latika Mohan, the then Dean and Noticee in this case.
Show Cause Decision: 29.08.2017 The Commission has examined the submissions and explanations of the Noticee in response to the Show Cause Notice. It is noticed that a great deal of detailed facts had not been put forth before the Commission during the hearing held on 28.06.2017. The factual matrix of the case, as it emerges from the explanation of the Noticee, noted above clearly establishes that:
1. The Ethics Committee did not find it a case of Plagiarism, and noted that all actions were done only to help the student
2. Official Documents asked for by Dr. Vinita Gupta by RTI were never withheld or denied
3. Improper submissions by the Respondents present for the hearing have led to incomplete reporting of the situation and thus distortion of facts.
4. No case of deliberate concealment of information or violation of the RTI Act can be established in view of the explanation of the Noticee.
In so far as the allegations of the appellant about the tampering or fabrication of documents is concerned, it is a matter to be adjudicated by conduct of a trial and outside the ambit of the RTI Act or the instant penal proceedings. The appellant must approach appropriate forum for adjudication of the same. The Noticee, is exonerated of the charges of deliberate denial or suppression of information and penal proceedings against Dr. Latika Mohan are dropped.
The file is closed and directed to be consigned to record Room.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Vinita Nodal Officer - RTI Cell,
Dr. Vinita Gupta, House No. - Senior Administrative Officer
908, Sector-17, & CPIO, All India Institute
Faridabad-121007 (Haryana). Of Medical Sciences, Virbhadra
Haryana,Faridabad,121007 Road, Rishikesh, District -
Dehradun-249201, (Uttarakhand).
First Appellate Authority under
RTI
Prof. (Dr.) Mukesh Tripathi,
Medical Superintendent & FAA,
All India Institute Of
Medical Sciences, Virbhadra Rd,
Rishikesh, District -
Dehradun-249201, Uttarakhand