Central Information Commission
Shri Sudhir Chopra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 12 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000045 & 46 both dated 12.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Sudhir Chopra
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced: 12.2.2010
Facts:
These are two appeals received from Shri Sudhir Chopra of Kalkaji, New Delhi.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000045 By an application of 3.5.08 Shri Sudhir Chopra sought the following information from the CPIO, CVC:
"1. Details of cases where Commission received repeated requests for reconsideration of its advice during last one year (details of cases, nature of advice on which reconsideration sought e.g. the department did not agree on Commission's advice to impose penalty, name of the department date of advice etc.) during last one year.
2. Detail of cases where Commission reconsidered its own advice and took a different view (during last one year).
3. All the inputs relied which culminated in issue of 008/VGL/0027 dated 24.4.08 (circular No. 15.4.08) Copies of all documents/records/notes/notings are required.
4. Details of cases where Defence Estates department sought reconsideration of Commission's advice against imposition of penalty.
5. Content of Delhi High Court's judgment in Bhagat Singh vs. CIC may kindly be kept in view while furnishing information as requested. If information is not held in the manner it is requested it may be provided in the manner it is held / maintained with all supporting documents."
Received in the CVC on 6.5.08, CPIO Shri J. Vinod Kumar, US replied pointwise through a letter dated 4.6.08, as follows:
1"1. Information of cases where Commission received repeated requests for reconsideration during the last one year is not stored separately in the Commission's database or in any other device from which such information can be called out. However, on manually checking the records three such instances of repeated reconsideration proposals appear to have been received, one each from the Life Insurance Corp. of India, Ministry of Urban Development Ministry of External Affairs.
2. Reply / information would be furnished shortly.
3. All inputs including noting pages pertaining to issue of Commission's circular No. 008/VGL/0027 dated 24.4.2008 consisting twelve pages is enclosed herewith. You are requested to send Rs. 24/- towards cost of supplying twelve pages (Rs. 2/- per page) in the prescribed mode (Cash/DD/IPO in the name of Section Officer, CVC, New Delhi.)
4. No such case for reconsideration was received in the Commission."
Objecting to the answers specifically at points 1 & 4 Shri Sudhir Chopra moved an appeal before Shri Vineet K. Gupta, Addl. Secretary, CVC on 17.6.08, pleading as below:
"2. On point (i) CPIO stated that only three instances of repeated reconsideration proposals were received without giving required details of proposals except names of departments. This appears quite contradictory as commissions own circular No. 15/4/08 dated 24.4.08 itself states that "the Commission has expressed serious concern about receiving repeated requests for reconsideration of its advice " - - -
3. The information given does not appear to be correct. If the commission could express its serious concern on receiving only three requests for reconsideration by issuing a circular, one is really surprised how is it that similar concern is lacking when its own advice of initiating disciplinary proceeding in six cases of defence estates department whose officers total strength is hardly 130 is not complied with..
4. That information provided by CPIO is incorrect is further proved from her reply to point No. (iv) where it has been said that there was no case of Defence Estates Deptt. where reconsideration of commissions advice against Shri OP Mishran Officer of defence estates deptt. who was earlier advised imposition of penalty."2
Upon this, Shri Sudhir Chopra received the following order of Shri Gupta dated 6.7.08:
"I find that the reply / information furnished by CPIO on para (i) is that separate information of repeated requests for reconsideration is not stored or readily available. Further, CPIO has also provided information after manually checking the records of the Commission of three such cases, I find that the appellant in his application has sought the name of department, nature of advice and date of advice of such cases during the last one year. CPIO may provide such details sought, in addition to the name of department supplied to the appellant in respect of the three cases.
2. As regards para (iv) CPIO informed that no such case for reconsideration was received in the Commission. Appellant in appeal has cited details of a case in which information was provided by the Commission earlier. On considering the issue, I find that the appellant is not clear on the role and function of the Commission. It may be noted that the Commission tenders advice at two different stages in vigilance / disciplinary matters, and advice tendered at the first stage is for initiation of RDA and the advice tendered at second stage is termed as imposition of penalty. I find that the case cited by the appellant relates to a first stage recommendation matter, whereas information sought by the appellant was termed as imposition of penalty. As such information / reply provided by CPIO is correct and in order.
3. Information in respect of para (ii) of the application relates to details of cases where Commission reconsidered its own advice and took a different view during the last one year. CPIO is in the process of collecting the said information, which is not readily available and is required to be culled out. CPIO is directed to provide the number of cases / officers, Ministry / Department-wise of such cases to the appellant expeditiously. I also find that the appellant has not remitted an amount of Rs. 24/- towards supply of twelve pages containing information sought under para (iii) which was intimated by the CPIO. Appellant is therefore, advised to send the amount requested by CPIO within ten days of these orders, failing which CPIO may treat the issue as closed."
On receiving no further information, despite orders of Appellate Authority, Shri Sudhir Chopra has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"i) Direction to CPIO to provide requested information.3
ii) penalty on CPIO and Appellate Authority for malafidely declining information.
iii) Cost and damages (Rs. 10,000/- + 1000)."
In the conclusion of this appeal, Shri Sudhir Chopra has submitted as follows:
"The applicant is a whistle blower and is deeply concerned with the working of CVC and vigilance machinery of the govt. and through recourse to information under RTI Act, the applicant has been trying to bring about transparency and accountability in the working of CVC and Defence Estates department. As per information gathered under RTI Act, only half hearted attempts are made to go through the motions of appearing to take action against wrong doers while quietly closing the cases on "reconsideration".
Complaints made by whistle blowers are not treated seriously and even if charges are proved, CVC itself agrees to close the cases on being approached by the CVO of the Defence Ministry for reconsideration. Vigilance machinery appears to have become ineffective and corrupt friendly and there is hardly any fear of CVC especially in defence estates department where those who are blowing whistle on corruption are being harassed and victimized and those involved in corruption cases are being protected and promoted. Such is the state of affairs in Defence Estates department that an officer involved in criminal case is DDG Vigilance and CVC is fully aware about this and no problem on that account."
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000046 In this case by an application also dated 3.5.08 Shri Sudhir Chopra sought the following information from CPIO, CVC:
"(1) Details of cases where officers of defence Estates Department have reported to CVC that they have been implicated in false disciplinary & vigilance case by Director General of defence Estates for reasons of vendetta after having reported about serious irregularities. (2) Action taken by CVC in such cases at (1) above."
To this, Shri Chopra received the following response from CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari, Director dated 16.5.08:
"With regard to paras 1 & 2 of your application it is informed that as no such separate and retrievable data either in electronic or manual 4 form, is maintained by the Commission, the information sought by you, cannot be provided in terms of section 2 (f) of the Act."
Shri Sudhir Chopra then moved a first appeal before Shri V. K. Gupta on 27.5.08 submitting as below:
"CPIO appears to have neither applied her mind nor understood sections of RTI Act and declined to furnish the simple information by treating the requested information being outside the definition of information itself."
In his order of 27.6.08 Shri Vineet K. Gupta AS, CVC has upheld the orders of CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari, as follows:
"On examining the documents and connected papers pertaining to the issue, I find that the Commission maintains information/ data of complaints and vigilance cases in a computerized format which is case specific in respect of each officer. In the computerized format there is no field regarding the representation of false implication. Hence, cases of such nature cannot be captured from the data base directly. To detect case with such representations all case files pertaining to Defence Estate Department will have to be sifted which cannot be done within a reasonable time, unless details of the officer or the case are made available. As such, the reply of CPIO that no such separate and retrievable data either in electronic or in manual form is maintained by the Commission is in order."
In this case, appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra's prayer before us is as below:
"(i) Requested information has been denied malafidely.
(ii) Penalty on CPIO and Appellate Authority for malafidely declining information.
(iii) Cost and damages (Rs. 10000+1000)"
In this too, the appeal concludes with a complaint against CVC similar to that in the above appeal regarding the alleged plight of whistleblowers. Both appeals were heard together on 12.2.2010. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra Respondent CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari, Director.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000045 5 In this case, Appellate Authority Shri Vineet K. Gupta has allowed the appeal with regard to points 1 & 2 of the initial request, while dismissing the appeal concerning point 4. However, appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra complained that there has been no compliance. Respondent Ms. Shalini Darbari was also unable to demonstrate any record of compliance with the orders of the Addl. Secretary Sh. Vineet K.Gupta.
On point No. 4, however, appellant Shri Chopra submitted that what he has cited is a case where CVC had indeed recommended initiation of proceedings for imposition of a minor penalty, and then withdrawn the same. Upon this, however, respondent CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari submitted that what appellant has asked for is information on the second stage advice which would call for information on advice for actual imposition of penalty being sought to be reconsidered, not merely first stage reply, which would be advice to initiate proceedings. This is what Appellate Authority Shri Gupta has also held in dismissing the appeal on this point.
While conceding this issue, therefore, appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra then requested that he may please be provided information regarding CVC being approached for seeking reconsideration of its first stage advice. It was explained to Shri Chopra that this will amount to initiation of fresh proceedings u/s 17(1) of the RTI Act, to which he agreed.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/21009/000046 In this case respondent Ms. Shalini Darbari submitted that no such record is being separately maintained for those who are whistle blowers and treated as applicants under Public Interest Disclosure Resolution (PIDR). If specific cases are cited, as already held by the Appellate Authority, such information will be provided. To this appellant responded by citing his own case in which he also presented copies of his correspondence with the DOPT. Upon this, CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari informed the Commission that in the case of Shri Sudhir Chopra 6 his application had not been treated as PIDR case and has been referred to the CVO, Department of Defence Estates, as borne out in documents also presented by appellant Shri Chopra in the hearing. Upon this Shri Chopra complained against the entire processing of PIDR applications by CVC which, in his view, has exposed whistle blowers to risk and victimisation.
DECISION NOTICE FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000045 It is for the public authority to itself ensure compliance with orders passed by its senior officers. In this case the Additional Secretary has passed clear orders which seem to have been flouted. Then CPIO Shri Rajiv Verma will now show cause as to why he should not be held liable for obstructing furnishing of information to appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra, which will result in imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. He will do this in writing addressed to Shri PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission by or before 8th March, 2010, failing which the Commission will proceed under sub-section (1) of Sec. 20 of the RTI Act 2005.
On the question in point No. 4 of this application, however, we find that the request of appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra as worded, has been responded to fully. CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari may now, therefore, treat the modified request of Shri Sudhir Chopra for information regarding CVC being approached for seeking reconsideration on its first stage advice by the Dep't of Defence Estates as a fresh application under the RTI Act and proceed, upon receipt of this Decision Notice, to process it as per sub sec. (1) of Sec. 7 of the RTI Act.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2009/000046 In this case clearly CPIO, CVC has no information to give since it does not maintain the kind of information asked for. The arguments in the hearing also largely focus on what appellant Shri Sudhir Chopra considers the failure of CVC 7 to service whistle blowers and not on the contents of the information provided. In his personal case, cited by him as an example, it appears that the information has indeed been provided as to action taken on his complaint even though he deems that to be the wrong action taken. To remedy this Shri Sudhir Chopra will have to take recourse to the usual legal options for redress, and not to the RTI Act., 2005.
On the other hand, the CVC is the principal servicing authority for enforcement of PIDR. If separate records are not maintained of applications received under PIDR and their disposal, this would, in our view, be a violation of its responsibility under the RTI Act to maintain all its record duly cataloged and indexed in a manner which facilitates RTI. This would also be in violation of sec. 4(1) (b) (iv) wherein it is required that every public authority suo moto disclose the "norms cited by it for discharge of its functions", among them in the case of CVC, being the service of whistle blowers. For this reason, the CVC is directed u/s 19 (1) (b) to take such steps as are necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act by providing access to information on PIDR whenever so requested, in the form requested, to all whistle blowers and indeed to the citizenry. This exercise may be completed within sixty days of the date of receipt of this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar of this Commission Both appeals are thus allowed, each of them in part.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 12.2.2010 8 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 12.2.2010 9