Central Information Commission
Rananjay Pratap Singh vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... on 29 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: CIC/CCCAZ/C/2023/649507
CIC/DGVCE/A/2023/653005
Rananjay Pratap Singh ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate General of Vigilance,
Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Indirect Taxes
& Customs, 4th Floor, BSNL Telephone
Exchange Building, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad - 380063 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.01.2025
Date of Decision : 16.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeal/complaint are clubbed together as the
Appellant/Complainant is common and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CCCAZ/C/2023/649507
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.10.2023
Page 1 of 11
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"2. In this regard, it is to intimate that actions/omissions of the officials relating to the subject matter of this Online RTI Application appear to be arbitrary, unjust, improper, illegitimate, and bad in law being in absolute contravention of standard instructions/procedures of DGoV/CVC/DoPT.
3. It is to put up on record that the Applicant {presently working as Superintendent at Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar} is being harassed by way of denying his due benefits without even letting him know the contents of the alleged CPGRAMS and/or without any material evidence against him. It is learnt that ex parte decisions & actions affecting the life & liberty of the Applicant have been taken by the authorities concerned without providing him any opportunity in absolute violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Compelled by the situation, this RTI Application is being made as per the directions of his Advocate to pursue the matter before all legal & constitutional forums including Hon'ble Courts of Law for seeking justice.
4. It is a matter of fact that the undersigned has neither received Show Cause Notice nor Charge Sheet in any case from any authority till date. Albeit, an endless Inquiry pertaining to the alleged misuse of funds of the Service Association (which is not Government Revenue, hence not covered under the PC, Act, 1988 as well) is being conducted since July, 2020, defying all the timelines provided by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as well as Directorate General of Vigilance (CBIC), New Delhi for completion of Inquiry/Investigation. From the chain of events, it is apparent that the sole aim to keep the alleged Inquiry alive even after passing of more than three years is to somehow substantiate and justify the patently illegal actions in denying the due benefits to the undersigned.
5. It is to put up on record that even after repeated requests and written reminders, not to talk of the copies of the alleged CPGRAMS even the contents thereof have not been shared with the undersigned. None of the Representations submitted with the authorities have been taken into consideration. In the meantime, it is learnt that without attempting to know the views of the undersigned as per the law, and flouting all Principles of Natural Justice, the erstwhile Pr. Commissioner of Customs Page 2 of 11 (Preventive), Jamnagar (Dr. Ram Niwas) had sought some First Stage Advice for Major Penalty from the Additional Director of Vigilance, Ahmedabad (DGoV, Ahmedabad) in May, 2022. No such First Stage Advice was ever tendered as it would have culminated into issuance of Charge Sheet.
6. Nevertheless, the undersigned was denied Vigilance Clearance for Reward, and Sensitive Posting in Annual General Transfer-2022 (August, 2022) against the extant instructions of Directorate General of Vigilance.
Before departing Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar to assume his new responsibilities as Chief Commissioner, Dr. Ram Niwas remanded the matter back for more Inquiry to Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit (DGGI, Ahmedabad) in April, 2023.
7. Subsequently, as per the directions of Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi, the CPIO, Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar vide his letter dated 06.06.2023 provided some information including that due to a recommendation for vigilance action received from the Additional Director General (Vigilance), Ahmedabad, Vigilance Clearance has been denied for Reward. After discussion with lawyers and subject experts, it transpired that the name of the undersigned had been included in the Agreed List for the F.Y. 2022-23 by the Directorate General of Vigilance, Ahmedabad without any recommendation from the Disciplinary Authority, and the same has not been removed till date rather retained for F.Y. 2023- 24 causing continued mental harassment to the undersigned whose due benefits are being denied under the garb of unending Inquiry & Agreed List. Further, the undersigned has continuously been posted in Non- Sensitive since July, 2019 without conveying any adverse report to him.
8. Here, it is apt to quote a few lines from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 279 of 2022: "...He is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment." In a catena of judgments starting from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) followed by Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981 AIR 746), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802), Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982 AIR 1473), State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale (1983 AIR 803), Chandra Rajakumari v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad [1998 (1) ALT 329], and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that right to life under Page 3 of 11 Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to live a dignified life with decency.
9. Now, in view of the above, it is requested to provide the following pieces of information pertaining to DGoV, Ahmedabad in soft copies on mail:
(i) Please provide the certified copy of Circulars/Instructions/OMs issued by DoPT/CVC/DGoV in r/o preparation of Agreed Lists.
(ii) Please provide the certified copy of Circulars/Instructions/OMs issued by DoPT/CVC/DGOV in r/o definition of the term 'contemplated cases'. Please also provide the time span for treating the case as 'contemplated'.
(iii) Please provide the grounds for inclusion of name of an officer in the Agreed Lists. Please specify the reasons, if any recorded in writing for inclusion and continuation of the name of the undersigned in Agreed Lists.
(iv) Please state the name and designation of the authority competent to include the name of an officer in the Agreed Lists.
(v) Please state the number of cases (yearwise) where the name of an officer was included in the Agreed Lists without any recommendation from his Disciplinary Authority during the last 10 years.
(vi) Please state the number of cases (yearwise) when the recommendations of Disciplinary Authority to remove the name of an officer from Agreed Lists were over-ruled by DGoV, Ahmedabad during the last 10 years.
(vii) Please state the number of cases (yearwise) where the name of an officer of CBIC was sponsored by CBI for inclusion in the Agreed Lists during the last 10 years.
(viii) Please state the number of occasions (yearwise) when a Report from Groups within DGoV, Ahmedabad were sought for inclusion/continuation of name of an officer in the Agreed Lists during the last 10 years.
(ix) Please provide the due dates as well as actual dates & places for meetings convened in r/o Agreed Lists during the last 10 years.
(x) Please provide the timelines being adhered to at DGOV, Ahmedabad for Inquiry/Investigation against an officer, and preparation of Agreed Lists.
(xi) Please provide the action taken against the authorities failing badly in adhering to timelines for completion of Inquiry/Investigation of cases causing undue harassment to officers being inquired/investigated.Page 4 of 11
(xii) Please provide the certified copies of Note Sheet & correspondences in relation to the aforesaid information, and also allow inspection of records."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 09.10.2023 stating as under:
"(i to ii) - The information is available in the Public Domain in the websites of CBIC and CVC.
(iii to x) - The Agreed List is prepared in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which is confidential and any information pertaining to the Agreed List cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 the RTI Act 2005.
(xi) - No such information is available/maintained in this office.
(xii) - The Agreed List is prepared in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which is confidential and any information pertaining to the Agreed List cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 08.10.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/DGVCE/A/2023/653005 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 09.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 15.10.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 13.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"In this regard, it is to intimate that actions/omissions of the officials relating to the subject matter of this Online RTI Application appear to be Page 5 of 11 arbitrary, unjust, improper, illegitimate, and bad in law being in absolute contravention of standard instructions/procedures of DGoV/CVC/DoPT.
It is to put up on record that the Applicant {presently working as Superintendent at Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar} is being harassed by way of denying his due benefits without even letting him know the contents of the alleged CPGRAMS and/or without any material evidence against him. It is learnt that ex parte decisions & actions affecting the life & liberty of the Applicant have been taken by the authorities concerned without providing him any opportunity in absolute violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Compelled by the situation, this RTI Application is being made as per the directions of his Advocate to pursue the matter before all legal & constitutional forums including Hon'ble Courts of Law for seeking justice.
It is a matter of fact that the undersigned has neither received Show Cause Notice nor Charge Sheet in any case from any authority till date. Albeit, an endless Inquiry pertaining to the alleged misuse of funds of the Service Association (which is not Government Revenue, hence not covered under the PC, Act, 1988 as well) is being conducted since July, 2020, defying all the timelines provided by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as well as Directorate General of Vigilance (CBIC), New Delhi for completion of Inquiry/Investigation. From the chain of events, it is apparent that the sole aim to keep the alleged Inquiry alive even after passing of more than three years is to somehow substantiate and justify the patently illegal actions in denying the due benefits to the undersigned.
It is to put up on record that even after repeated requests and written reminders, not to talk of the copies of the alleged CPGRAMS even the contents thereof have not been shared with the undersigned. None of the Representations submitted with the authorities have been taken into consideration. In the meantime, it is learnt that without attempting to know the views of the undersigned as per the law, and flouting all Principles of Natural Justice, the erstwhile Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar (Dr. Ram Niwas) had sought some First Stage Advice for Major Penalty from the Additional Director of Vigilance, Ahmedabad (DGoV, Ahmedabad) in May, 2022. No such First Stage Advice was ever tendered as it would have culminated into issuance of Charge Sheet.Page 6 of 11
Nevertheless, the undersigned was denied Vigilance Clearance for Reward, and Sensitive Posting in Annual General Transfer-2022 (August, 2022) against the extant instructions of Directorate General of Vigilance.
Before departing Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar to assume his new responsibilities as Chief Commissioner, Dr. Ram Niwas remanded the matter back for more Inquiry to Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit (DGGI, Ahmedabad) in April, 2023.
Subsequently, as per the directions of Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi, the CPIO, Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar vide his letter dated 06.06.2023 provided some information including that due to a recommendation for vigilance action received from the Additional Director General (Vigilance), Ahmedabad, Vigilance Clearance has been denied for Reward. After discussion with lawyers and subject experts, it transpired that the name of the undersigned had been included in the Agreed List for the F.Y. 2022-23 by the Directorate General of Vigilance, Ahmedabad without any recommendation from the Disciplinary Authority, and the same has not been removed till date rather retained for F.Y. 2023- 24 causing continued mental harassment to the undersigned whose due benefits are being denied under the garb of unending Inquiry & Agreed List. Further, the undersigned has continuously been posted in Non- Sensitive since July, 2019 without conveying any adverse report to him.
Here, it is apt to quote a few lines from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 279 of 2022: "...He is trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where the process has itself become the punishment." In a catena of judgments starting from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) followed by Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981 AIR 746), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802), Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982 AIR 1473), State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale (1983 AIR 803), Chandra Rajakumari v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad [1998 (1) ALT 329], and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to live a dignified life with decency.
Now, in view of the above, it is requested to provide the following pieces of information pertaining to DGoV, Ahmedabad in soft copies on mail:
(i) Please provide the certified copy of Circulars/Instructions/OMs issued by DoPT/CVC/DGoV in r/o preparation of Agreed Lists.Page 7 of 11
(ii) Please provide the certified copy of Circulars/Instructions/OMs issued by DoPT/CVC/DGoV in r/o definition of the term 'contemplated cases'. Please also provide the time span for treating the case as 'contemplated'.
(iii) Please provide the grounds for inclusion of name of an officer in the Agreed Lists. Please specify the reasons, if any recorded in writing for inclusion and continuation of the name of the undersigned in Agreed Lists.
(iv) Please state the name and designation of the authority competent to include the name of an officer in the Agreed Lists.
(v) Please state the number of cases (yearwise) where the name of an officer was included in the Agreed Lists without any recommendation from his Disciplinary Authority during the last 10 years.
(vi) Please state the number of cases (yearwise) when the recommendations of Disciplinary Authority to remove the name of an officer from Agreed Lists were over-ruled by DGoV, Ahmedabad during the last 10 years.
(vii) Please state the number of cases (yearwise) where the name of an officer of CBIC was sponsored by CBI for inclusion in the Agreed Lists during the last 10 years.
(viii) Please state the number of occasions (yearwise) when a Report from Groups within DGoV, Ahmedabad were sought for inclusion/continuation of name of an officer in the Agreed Lists during the last 10 years.
(ix) Please provide the due dates as well as actual dates & places for meetings convened in r/o Agreed Lists during the last 10 years.
(x) Please provide the timelines being adhered to at DGoV, Ahmedabad for Inquiry/Investigation against an officer, and preparation of Agreed Lists.
(xi) Please provide the action taken against the authorities failing badly in adhering to timelines for completion of Inquiry/Investigation of cases causing undue harassment to officers being inquired/investigated.
(xii) Please provide the certified copies of Note Sheet & correspondences in relation to the aforesaid information, and also allow inspection of records."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.10.2023 stating as under:
"(i to ii) - The information is available in the Public Domain in the websites of CBIC and CVC.
(iii to x) The Agreed List is prepared in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which is confidential and any information Page 8 of 11 pertaining to the Agreed List cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 the RTI Act 2005.
(xi) - No such information is available/maintained in this office.
(xii) - The Agreed List is prepared in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which is confidential and any information pertaining to the Agreed List cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri H.N. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner and authorized representative of the CPIO present through Video-Conference.
Written submissions of the Complainant/Appellant and Respondent are taken on record.
The Complainant/Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent and the same has been wrongly denied to him. He stated that he has sought his own information, and he is entitled to obtain the same under the RTI Act.
The Respondent, while defending their case inter-alia submitted that they have categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Complainant/Appellant. The Respondent further contended that the Agreed List is prepared in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which is confidential and any information pertaining to the Agreed List cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 the RTI Act 2005.Page 9 of 11
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Complainant/Appellant has sought specific information which is related to his own case. The defense taken by the Respondent in denying the information to the Complainant/Appellant as per his RTI application is not tenable in the instant case. It is further noted that the period involved in the case is around four and half years which is a long time in any government servant's career of roughly 33 years.
Further, the contention of the Respondent that the Agreed List is prepared in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which is confidential and any information pertaining to the Agreed List cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 the RTI Act 2005, is not correct. The information, such as proposal sent by Respondent Public Authority, sought by the Appellant is held in the records of the Respondent Public Authority, which is not an exempted organization under the RTI Act.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Respondent is directed to re- examine the RTI application dated 24.09.2023 and provide complete point- wise information to the Complainant/Appellant, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
If the Appellant is not satisfied with the information provided, he is allowed to inspect the relevant records in the office of the Respondent Public Authority. For the said purpose, the Appellant needs to inform the Respondent his intent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of information in compliance to this order. Accordingly, the Commission directs the CPIO, to facilitate an opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records to the Appellant or his authorized representative on a mutually decided date & time within two weeks thereafter. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. The PIO is further directed to arrange all relevant files (as per RTI application) at one place before calling the Appellant or his authorized representative for inspection. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in Page 10 of 11 writing well in advance. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record the PIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Copy of documents that the Appellant or his authorized representative desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, Directorate General of Vigilance, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Indirect Taxes & Customs, 4th Floor, BSNL Telephone Exchange Building, Naranpura, Ahmedabad - 380063 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)