Central Information Commission
Man Mohan Pandey vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. on 21 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BELBL/A/2023/603231
MAN MOHAN PANDEY .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Bharat Electronics Ltd.,
PO - Bharat Nagar,
Ghaziabad - 201010 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14-05-2024
Date of Decision : 16-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 07-12-2022
First appeal filed on : 15-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 11-01-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"Please refer to the reply given to my RTI Ref: BLRBL/R/E/21/00100 dated 17- 06-2021 which was replied on 9th July 2021. Also refer to the various complaints filed by me after this at the CVC Portal which had been forwarded to CVO-BEL As per RTI Act 2005 please share the following information with me:Page 1 of 10
1. In the reply dated 9th July 2021 to my RTI it was informed that complaint no: 156067; 156069; 157560; 158220; 158356; 158357; 159335; 174867; had been said to be forwarded to CMD- BEL by the CVO.
Please share with me the status of these complaints as they are still shown as open in the CVC Portal with remark that they have been "Sent to CVO-BEL for necessary action".
All these complaints were against CMD-BEL and his involvement in the corruption carried out in the Rsn7900 Crores IACCS Project and the unconstitutional methods adopted by him to dismiss me from service. Please share with me the relevant rule/circular/office order/CVC guidelines as per which the CVO can forward the complaint received from CVC to CMD of the organization. That to when the complaints are against CMD himself. As per the CVC Portal it specifically says that the complaint has to be scrutinized by the CVO of the organization himself:
"As the commission has sent your complaint for necessary action, it does not expect any report from the CVO of the organisation concerned. The CVO is expected to scrutinise the complaint within a period of one month of receipt of the complaint from the Commission and decide if any action is required. You may, therefore, if required, find out the status of your complaint from CVO, BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD"
2. In the reply dated 9th July 2021 to my RTI it is brought out that the complaints nos 158358 and 159417 were still open. Please share with me the status of these complaints and action taken by CVO-BEL on these complaints.
3. In the reply dated 9th July'2021 it was brought out that for complaint nos 163944; 164982; 165613;167542; 172678 no action was contemplated, and they have been updated in the Portal as "Filed". When you check the CVC Portal for status of these complaints, it still shows that these have been marked to CVO-BEL. Hence your statement that the status has been updated as "Filed" is not correct. As an example, the screen shot of CVC Portal on 07-11- 2022 is enclosed for complaint ref: 163944.
As per RTI Act 2005 please share with me whether the CVC Portal is displaying the wrong information, or the statement made in the RTI reply was false. Complaint ref: 172678 was against the past and the present CVO-BEL and their role in supporting the CMD-BEL in hiding corruption in Rs 7900 Crores IACCS Project.
As per RTI Act 2005 please share with me the relevant rule/circular/office order/CVC guidelines as per which the CVO of an organization can review complaints filed against him and can close the same.
Page 2 of 104. In the RTI reply to it has been claimed that the documents which have been used to close these complaints are "CONFIDENTIAL".
All these complaints are with respect to corruption in the implementation of IACCS project. How can the documents with respect to corruption be "SECRET or CONFIDENTAIL". The two main aspects of VIGILANCE are "Transparency" and "Accountability". The very functionality and existence of "Vigilance setup"
is compromised if "Transparency" is removed.
It is now clear (as shared by CVO-BEL) that the Preliminary Enquiry has been conducted by CBI with respect to the Corruption reported in the IACCS project (based on my complaint to the Prime Minister being taken up by the MoD). Also, CBI has submitted its report to the MoD and clearance has been granted by MoD to act on the Preliminary Enquiry report by filing a Regular Case.
When the CBI has taken up the Enquiry Based on my complaint (with inputs given by me) then how can it be claimed that the documents used by the CVO- BEL to close the complaints are confidential. Tampered and manipulated documents have been used to close these complaints (as has been shown to me by the CBI when I was called by them in January and February 2022). It was clear that CVO-BEL had been forwarding manipulated/tampered documents to the CVC to falsely try and prove that the Vigilance report submitted by the previous CVO dated 29-03-2019 was not based on facts and hence no case of corruption was there in implementation of IACCS project.
However now with CBI given clearance to file a regular case the falsehood resorted to by CVO-BEL has been clearly exposed. Hence as per RTI Act 2005 please share with me documents used by the CVO-BEL to close the complaints put by me in the CVO-Portal and which were forwarded by CVC to CVO-BEL for taking action.
5. Please refer to the 55 complaints registered in the CVC Portal (some of them have been registered by the CVC Office staff based on my EMAILs to CVC and other Officers in CVC) which have been put as Encl-3. Out of these (as on 07-11- 2022) a total of 36 complaints have been marked to CVO-BEL. All the Complaints marked to CVO-BEL are till date been shown as open in the CVC Portal (awaiting action from CVO-BEL).
As per RTI Act 2005 please share with me the status of each complaint which has been marked to the CVO-BEL by CVC. Also share with me the document/noting of CVO-BEL for closing the complaint (if they have been closed)."
Page 3 of 10The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07-12-2022 stating as under:
Sl.No. Information Sought Reply
1 Whether CVO BEL has received Yes
referred complaints? Yes/No
2 Whether any action has been Yes
taken/initiated by CVO BEL?
Yes/No.
3 If reply to 2 is yes, provide me All the complaints have been
details of action taken Forwarded to CMD-BEL for necessary
/initiated with documents used action from 156067/2020/vigilance-9
in support-
dt. 24.07.2020 to
174867/2021/vigilance-9 dated
18.03.2021.
158358/2020/vigilance-9 dt
20.08.20202 and
159417/2020/vigilance-9 dt.
21.08.2020 is under process.
163944/2020/vigilance-9 dt
19.10.2020 to
172678/2021/vigilance-9 dt
15.02.2021 - (No action
contemplated. Updated in CVC
portal as filed).
4 Whether these complaints has Yes, except for 2 Complaints.
been closed by CVO BEL? i) 158358/2020/vigilance-9 dated
Yes/No. 20.08.2020
ii) 159417/2020/vigilance-9 dated
21.08.2020
5 If reply to 4 is yes, provide me The documents sought are classified
documents used in support for as "Confidential", hence cannot be
closing the complaint. provided.
6 Whether status of complaints Status of closed complaints is
has been uploaded on CVC uploaded on CVC portal.
portal by CVO BEL in
compliance to CVC dated
13.08.20202? Yes/No.
Page 4 of 10
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 11-01-2023, held as under:
"Appeal is rejected for the information sought by the applicant since the reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Chetan Jaysingh Patil, AGM-cum-CPIO, Shri Davinder Kumar Singla, DGM and Shri Swastik Bhardwaj, Legal Officer, attended the hearing in person.
Shri BV Ramayya, Senior DGM and APIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that he was GM (product support) in BEL and was inquiry officer appointed by CVO.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and point-wise reply has been given by the CPIO vide letter dated 07.12.2022. He added that the Appellant was terminated from the service for sharing confidential information of BEL in public domain for which a case is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and since the Appellant is disgruntled employee of the organisation, he is misusing his right to information by filing similar RTI Applications to resolve his grievance.
A written submission dated nil has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated nil and the same has been taken on record, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"I would like to draw your kind attention to the plight of my whole family which has been forced to undergo all sorts of adverse situations, extreme harassment, medical emergencies and monetary constraints for the past five years just because I did not compromise with corruption and brought out the corruption in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project. The whole corrupt ecosystem stood behind the CMD-BEL to falsely Page 5 of 10 prove me to be an Anti-National element who had "Conspired to jeopardize National Security". My only request to you is to help me to get Justice for myself. I am not asking CIC to become the Judge for the illegal activities done by the BEL management (in connivance with the corrupt ecosystem) just because I brought out corruption in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project of Indian Air Force implemented by Bharat Electronics. I am only asking that CIC may kindly help me in getting the "Information" that I have been asking for from the MOD, CVC and BEL so that we can strengthen our case for getting Justice from the system.
Please refer to the hearing held on 15-06-2023 wherein BEL was forced to share the tampered Office Memo with me (it was tampered by BEL and submitted to CBI to falsely prove that I was an anti- national element who had exceeded the terms of reference of investigation given to me so as to leak "Top Secret" documents and "Jeopardize national security").
Please refer to the hearing held on 27-07-2023 wherein I was refused the "Information" with respect to providing me the various noting of the CVC wherein my complaints against the CMD-BEL and CVO-BEL were marked to CVO-BEL against the Complaint handling policy of the CVC. Although the I/C (while giving her judgement) took an emphatic view of the Ordeal faced by me but in her final order she advised me to approach the "appropriate forum for getting justice for myself". What that "appropriate forum" is has not been defined. Nor has she stated any logical reason why the "Information" has been refused in the final judgement (whereas during the course of the hearing she gave clear instructions to the CPIO so share the various noting with me). The full decision can be accessed vide the following link (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126540905/?type=print) as apart from the CIC site it is also available in the public domain.
Now I have got a letter from the CIC informing me that 14 Appeals filed by me are coming up for hearing on 14-05-2024. These are based on the RTI information which were denied to me by BEL.
The background of my putting the RTI needs to be understood by you before you give a decision on my appeal. I was made the Investigation Officer by CVO-BEL vide Office Memo dated 18-07-2018 to investigate corruption reported in the Rs 7900 Crores IACCS Project and I submitted my report on 03-10-2018 bringing out the various gross deviations (violations of BEL Works Contract Manual and CVC norms) in ordering of the Detailed Project report (DPR) to M/s R D Konsultants by BEL. As part of the DPR M/s R D Konsultants decided all the equipment which were to be used for making the underground buildings standalone blast proof. As brought out by M/s R D Konsultants in his Presentation (even before he got the order) that he had working relationship with all the European vendors who supply the equipment. In the DPR he defined the vendors along with the vendor reference. The same was conveyed to the Air Force by BEL and these vendors were included in the IACCS Contract signed between BEL and Air Force. The then CMD-BEL made a Technical Committee (which acted as a rubber stamp) to validate the specifications and vendor for the equipment suggested by M/s R D Konsultants. Hence all ordering of equipment was done to the vendors defined by M.s R D Konsultants. This was against the BEL purchase procedures since it calls for competitive bidding and multiple vendors which are identified by the Design team.Page 6 of 10
The same was validated by the CVO-BEL in his final Vigilance report dated 29-03- 2019. However, the CMD-BEL spread the false propaganda (with the backing received from Indian Air Force) claiming that no corruption or deviation had taken place in the implementation of the project (including the ordering of DPR). I was termed as a "Disgruntled Element".
The above referred RTI was with respect to getting "Information" with respect to the reply to the RTI provided by BEL to me with respect to my various complaints with respect to corruption in Rs 7900 Crores IACCS project and the involvement of CMD- BEL in the corruption (with support from the CVO-BEL in hiding this corruption). I had asked for the noting vide which these complaints which were forwarded by the CVC to CVO- BEL were closed or forwarded to CMD-BEL by the CVO-BEL (as claimed by CPIO BEL).
Vide Sl no-1 & 2 the CPIO BEL had acknowledged that all the Complaints forwarded by CVC had been received by the CVO-BEL and action has been taken by the CVO-BEL in all the complaints received.
Vide Sl no- 3 the CPIO BEL has acknowledged that eight complaints had been forwarded by CVO-BEL to CMD-BEL. Two are under progress and five have been closed and filed in the CVC Portal. The CPIO has not shared the various noting put by the CVO giving reasons for sending the complaints to CMD-BEL and for closing these complaints claiming that the noting are "CONFIDENTIAL" in nature and hence cannot be shared.
First of all, the complaints cannot be closed by forwarding them to the CMD- BEL since these complaints were with respect to corruption in which CMD- BEL was himself involved.
Secondly as per various CIC rules even those organizations which are exempted from the RTI Act have to give reply to any Information which is sought with respect to corruption. Hence saying that the noting which were with respect to corruption were confidential in nature is absolutely in violation of CIC norms (and RTI rules). The claim that five complaints have been filed in the CVC Portal was totally false since all these complaints were being shown as "Open" in the CVC Portal. Vide Sl no-5 the CPIO BEL has repeated his claim that the noting with respect to closing of the complaints received from CVC cannot be shared since they are "Confidential" in nature. How can the noting with respect to corruption be "Confidential"? The FIR filed by the CBI on 07-12-2022 has already exposed this corruption in the Enquiry Report which is available in the CBI Portal (does it mean that the CBI has put "Confidential" information in their website? The RTI Act is very clear with respect to information requested with respect to corruption. Even the Organizations which are exempt from the RTI act have to share information if it is with respect to corruption. Here the CPIO has tried to hide information taking the false pretext of "Confidentiality" just to hide corruption. The CVC site when it forwards the complaint to CVO-BEL has written at its site "As the commission has sent your complaint for necessary action, it does not expect any report from the CVO of the organization concerned. The CVO is expected to scrutinize the complaint within a period of one month of receipt of the complaint Page 7 of 10 from the commission and decide if any action is required. You may therefore, if required, find out the status of the complaint from the CVO Bharat Electronics Ltd". If you refer to screen print of the CVC Portal taken on 07-11-2022 for the Complaint 163944/2020/vigilance-9 dated 19-12-2020 the complaint was shown as "OPEN" in the Portal.
Hence the reply given by CPIO BEL denying me the information is also resorting to blatant lies when he says that the complaints have been closed in the CVC Portal. All the "Information sought by me through this RTI was rejected by the CPIO with the remark that the information sought is confidential in nature and disclosure of which would affect the security of the Nation. The same false charge was put on me by the CMD-BEL since in my investigation report had exposed the fact that the ordering of equipment was manipulated by the design consultant in connivance with BEL. I had given the details with respect to each reply given by the CPIO in my appeal to the FAA of the CBI Enquiry report to the FAA (even bringing out that the corruption which took place in the IACCS project which was put in my various complaints had already been brought out in the Enquiry report of CBI (as part of FIR filed dated 07- 12-2022), but the FAA has just closed the Appeal with a remark that the "reply given by the CPIO is complete to the extent possible".
I hope that the CIC will take cognizance of the wrong information and blatant lie resorted to by the CPIO BEL and FAA. If as per CIC any lie can be resorted to by CPIO to close any RTI and the CIC can only be a mute observer (with the claim that CIC is not a legal body to decide whether any illegal activity is being done by the CPIO) then I have nothing to say.
The information asked for by me, if it is given to me it will help me in proving that all wrong charges were put on me (since the CMD-BEL had falsely claimed that no corruption had taken place and termed by investigation as "Conspiracy to jeopardize national security".
The case of corruption in the implementation of IACCS project which was the subject of my various complaints put by me in the CVC Portal and closed by CVO-BEL has already been validated by the Enquiry Report and FIR filed by the CBI on 07-12-2022 which is available in the CBI website.
Hope to get justice from you."
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that an appropriate and point- wise reply in terms of RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent vide letter dated 07.12.2022 and the Commission upholds the same. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 14 cases of the same Appellant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Appeal listed Page 8 of 10 for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 13 matters of the Appellant simultaneously and the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied Page 9 of 10 Therefore, the Commission counsels the Appellant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)