Central Information Commission
Mr. Ashok Bhatia vs Central Vigilance Commission on 15 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000497 dated 21.4.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ashok Bhatia
Respondent - Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Heard & Decision announced: 15.7.2010
Facts:
By an application of 14.7.08 Shri Ashok Bhatia of Rani Bagh, Delhi applied to the CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, seeking the following information:
"1.Action taken on my application dated 28.7.06 submitted to the Addl. Commissioner (S&JJ), 31.7.06 submitted to the CVC and on 3.8.06 submitted to the CVO, MCD in pursuant to the CVC's circular No. 16/3/2006 dt. 28.3.2006 (copy of my representation enclosed for ready reference). Kindly provide.
2. A attested copies of the first stage advise and second stage advise taken on the charge sheet issued vide No. 1/VG/1201/653/91/CPC/Starkta/D-69 dt. 1.2.05 for lack of supervision for the period 11.8.03 to 12.1.04, as per the manual / guidelines/instructions/orders/circulars of the CVC, GOI and CVC's circular No. 16/3/2006 dt. 28th March, 2006 para (iii) (b).
3. If no action has been taken on my application, please inform action taken for deliberate violation and non compliance of CVC's / GOI's instructions against the concerned officials.
4. Action taken on my representation dt. 19.6.08 submitted in pursuant to CVC's circular No. 16/3/2006 dt. 28.3.06 (copy enclosed for ready reference).
5. In pursuant to the above circular No. 16/3/2006 dt. 28.3.06 this is a case of victimization of an official who has worked in the Vigilance Branch of the Slum and JJ Department, MCD w.e.f. 27.11.02 to 10.12.03. Please provide me certified copies of action taken on my representations, enquiry conducted, matter referred to CVC and protection granted in view of CVC's circular stated above.
6. If no action has been taken, when my cases will be called from the Vigilance Department of MCD for conducting an enquiry for inflicting of a minor penalty / censure for a period during which the undersigned was not working and framing of a concocted charge sheet for a minor penalty. AND from Administration Branch of the Slum & JJ Department, MCD who have deliberately concocted a story and misrepresented the facts before the higher authorities and action taken for misrepresentation of facts 1 against all concerned, keeping in view the CVC's / GOI's orders (copies of noting sheets page 109-110/N and O.O. No. GA/1120/3/97/Pt. File/144 dt. 25.7.07)."
To this Shri Bhatia received a response pointwise dated 24.7.08 from CPO Ms. Mamta Upadhyay Lal, Director, CVC, as below:
"1) Your application dated 28.7.06 had not been received in the Commission. However, a complaint dated nil h ad been received in the Commission on 1.8.06 vide Diary No. 22170 copy of which has been enclosed with your RTI application.
The complaint had been filed as per complaint handling policy of the Commission which is available on Commission's website http://cvc.nic.in
2. As per Commission's record no first stage/second stage advice had been tendered on the charge sheet issued vide No. 1/VG/1201/653/91/CPC/Satarkta/D-69 dated 1.2.2005 as MCD had not referred the case to the Commission for advice.
3. As your earlier complaint dated 13.7.06 on the same ground (received in the Commission on 14.7.2006) had been sent to CVO, MCD for necessary action as per complaint handling policy of the Commission, your abovementioned complaint received in the Commission on 1.8.2006 had been filed.
4. Your representation dated 19.6.2008 received in the Commission has been sent to CVO, MCD on 7.7.2008 for comments.
5. Your representation has been sent to CVO, MCD asking to furnish his comments on your allegations. No comments have been received yet.
6. MCD had not referred the case to the Commission for its advice. However, your representation has been sent to CVO, MCD for his comments. The same is yet to be received."
Shri Bhatia then moved an appeal on 6.8.08 strongly criticizing the manner in which the CVC had handled his representations, as below:
"1. The reply sent by Director & CPIO is not correct as far as instructions of Circular No. 16/3/2006 dt. 28.3.06, Govt. of India / CVC are concerned. There is no mention of filing of applications received by CVC in response to its circular dt. 28.3.06 as stated above under the complaint handling policy of the Commission.
2. The Commission has issued consolidated instructions in exercise of its powers under Sec. 8(1) of the CVC act, vide circular dt. 28.3.06 as stated in the above para. As such required follow up with the 2 concerned CVO consequent upon receipt of application in response to CVC's circular dt. 28.3.06, was required, which has not been carried out purposefully and hence no response / reply from CVO, MCD. This reply is an eye wash. Merely replying that the MCD had not referred the case to the Commission for advice is just saving your own skin. Whereas, it should have been called later on, in view of the instructions of the GOI, CVC.
3. Commission has circulated the procedure for seeking advice on charge-sheet vide its circular No. 14/07/06 dt. 13.3.2006 and similarly vide circular No. 16/03/06 dt. 28th March, 2006 have circulated as under :
"Protection against victimization of officials of the vigilance units of various Ministries / Departments / Organizations AND MCD DID NOT SEND MY CASE FOR FIRST STAGE ADVICE BEFORE CVC IN VIOLATION AND NON COMPLIANCE OF CIRCULAR NO. 14/03/06 DT. 13.3.2006, GOI, CVC AND CVC deliberately and purposefully filed my case instead of initiating any action for enquiry on receipt of another letter dt. 1.8.06 in view of its circular No. 16/03/06 dt. 28.3.2006 under the garb of the Complaint Handling Policy, which is not correct, as there is no mention that the complaint / reminders received in pursuance to the circular No. 16/03/06 dated 28.3.2006 will be filed.
In view of above, I am very sorry to inform that MCD and CVC thus worked in tandem and complemented each other by not performing their assigned duties with a view to ignore the complaints of victims or filing complaints, as has been done in this case, as informed by the CVC.
4. Thank you very much for forwarding my representation dt.
19.6.08 to CVO, MCD on 7.7.08 but no number has been provided through which I can vouch for redressal of any action on my grievance / complaint made to CVC.
I am afraid this application might also die its own death under the Complaint Handling Policy, thereby making mockery of the instructions / circulars issued by Govt. of India, CVC particularly Circular No. 16/03/2006 dt. 28.3.06 para 3(iii) (b), (c) and para 4.
5. This is a very casual approach on the applications submitted / sent to CVC for protection of victims of officials of the Vigilance Units. The applications / representations sent in response to CVC's circular No. 16/03/2006 dt. 28.3.2006 para 3(iii) (b), (c) 3 and para 4 are not attended to or merely filed under the garb of the Complaint Handling Policy. Whereas, these are required to be looked into for its logical conclusion, in view of directions of CVC.
On the one hand GOI, CVC assures / encourages officials of protection against victimization of officials of the vigilance units of various Ministries / Department / Organizations and on the other hand, CVC remains mute spectator for the victims who approaches CVC and let the instructions / circulars of GOI, CVC violated / flouted through non- compliances or not following up or simply filed by CVC.
6. Sir, if I am not wrong, my earlier complaint / representations dt. 13.7.06 received by CVC has not been replied by CVO, MCD and it is going to be two years."
As will be evident from the above, there is, in this appeal, no question on the information provided by CPIO. Accordingly, Appellate Authority Shri Vineet K. Gupta, Addl. Secretary, in his order of 4.9.08, has come to the following conclusion:
"Appellant in his representations is basically requesting for protection from alleged victimization in terms of Commission circular dated 28.3.06. A decision in this regard will be taken in the Commission on receipt of comments of the CVO, MCD on his representation dated 19.6.08. For the present therefore, Commission does not have any other information on this issue. However, CVO, MCD is being asked to expedite his response."
Shri Bhatia has then made a further representation to the Appellate Authority stating as follows:
"A lot of time is wasted in unnecessary correspondence and the violators remained scot free and MOCK THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION AND VIGILANCE WINGS and he honest officials who report victimization keep on suffering, harassed and mentally tortured.
I shall be grateful if the matter is looked into for logical conclusion at the earliest as informed under the RTI matter."
Although this is clearly not a request for any further information, CPIO Shri Rajeev Verma Under Secretary has responded on 4.3.09 with the following comments:
4"As the issue raised is in the form of seeking fresh information, you are advised to make a fresh application to the CPIO concerned under the provisions of RTI Act. You may please note that the Appellate Authority cannot be asked to provide fresh / additional information, which was not part of the original application."
Shri Ashok Bhatia has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"In view of the position explained above, the replies given by the CVC, is not correct, evasive and not in consonance with the powers and functions of the CVC as well as Circular issued vide No. 16/3/06 dated 28th March, 2006. This is merely an exercise to protect themselves for their non-performance. Hence this appeal before your kind good self as Appellate Authority-II under Right to Information Act, 2005 for appropriate action under the powers vested with the CIC."
However, nowhere in this appeal petition is there any mention of any failure of the CPIO to provide information as held by the CVC, but only a criticism of the application of the orders protecting whistle blowers in his case.
The appeal was heard on 15.7.10. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Ashok Bhatia Respondents Shri Samir Sahai, Director Appellant Shri Bhatia was asked to explain which information that he had sought has remained undisclosed. To this, he responded by citing Q. No. 5 seeking to know why he was not granted protection in view of CVC's circular.
DECISION NOTICE The contents of the CVC's circular cited by appellant Shri Bhatia in para 5 of his RTI application and quoted by us above, are well known to appellant Shri Bhatia. If he is of the view that the CVC has not followed its own instructions in application of this circular in his case, he will need to make a representation to 5 the Commission itself. The Central Information Commission can only provide him the information that will enable him to make such a representation which he in fact already possesses. In consequence, as explained by respondent Shri Samir Sahai, Director, CVC, that Commission has pursued the matter with CVO, MCD and also now obtained a report. The purpose of the RTI Act has, therefore, been met in the first instance with the response of CPIO Ms. Mamta Upadhyay Lal. Thereafter, this has become a complaint and response to Shri Bhatia's application which takes the matter outside the purview of the RTI Act and hence the jurisdiction of this Commission. But whereas we have indeed faulted the process followed by appellant Shri Bhatia in going for a second appeal and subsequent petition leading to treating of this too as an RTI application by CPIO Shri Rajeev Kumar, Under Secretary, CVC, we are constrained also to point out that in handling the appeal and subsequent petition, the CVC itself is at fault. Appellate Authority, no doubt, has identified the grievance of appellant Shri Bhatia. However, it should have been made clear at this very stage that the appeal transcended the limitations of accessing information which is defined in sec. 2(j), as follows:
2(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv)obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; "
All the relevant documents that could be provided in terms of Sec. 2(j) are in the hands of appellant Shri Ashok Bhatia. The response of CPIO Shri Rajeev Verma to Shri Bhatia's strident accusations in his letter of 24.2.09 is nothing short of bizarre, since Shri Bhatia has not asked for any information but simply criticized the performance of CVC in dealing with whistle blowers. By this 6 means, the Appellate Authority, CVC and CPIO Shri Rajeev Verma, by encouraging appellant Shri Ashok Bhatia into making a second appeal under RTI which is clearly unsustainable, have simply wasted each others' time. With these admonitions and hoping for a more professional response to RTI applications, we find this appeal without merit under the RTI Act and it is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 15.7.2010 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 15.7.2010 7