Central Information Commission
Dr. Subhash C. Batra vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 20 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000479
Appellant : Dr. Subhash C. Batra
Public Authority : Central Warehousing Corporation
(through Shri J.V. Bendre, DGM (Pers)
(CPIO); Shri J.K. Sharma, AGM (Vig) & Shri
J.P. Yadav, APIO)
Date of Hearing : 20.7.2009
Date of Decision : 20.7.2009
Facts
By his letter of 21.10.2008, the appellant had sought information on the following paras :-
"(i) Copy of the relevant provision of the CWC (Staff) Regulation/relevant rules/relevant provisions of the law as per which the statement of defence furnished by the Charged Official is examined and commented upon by the CVO in the CWC;
(ii) Copy of the relevant provision of the CWC (Staff) Regulaiton/relevant rules/relevant provisions of the law as per which the Report of the Inquiry is examined and commented upon by the CVO in the CWC;
(iii) Copy of the relevant provison of the CWC (Staff) Regulation/relevant rules/relevant provisions of the law as per which the matter is examined and commented upon by the CVO in the CWC for the purpose of preparing the points of disagreement by the DA; &
(iv) Copy of the relevant provision of the CWC (Staff) Regulation/relavant rules/relevant provision of the law as per which the comments of the Charged Official received on the Report of the inquiry and/or on the points of disagreements are examined and commented upon by the CVO in the CWC.
2. Vide letter dated 28.11.2008, the CPIO had informed the appellant that the functions of CVO were given in Vigilance Manual Volume-I.
3. On appeal, the Appellate Authority had upheld the decision of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with this, the has filed the present appeal before the Commission.
5. The matter is heard on 20.7.2009. The appellant is present. The public authority is represented by the officers named above. It is the principal submission of the appellant that the rules/regulations of CWC do not provide for comments of CVO on the defence statements at any stage, that is, at pre-inquiry stage or at pre decision stage. According to him, the rules of CWC do not permit any such comments by CVO at any stage.
6. On the other hand, it is the submission of Shri Bendre that 2.12.1 of the CVC (Vigilance) manual Volume-I, which has been adopted by the CWC, lays down the role of CVO. The relevant paras are extracted below :-
"2.12.1. As stated above, the CVO heads the Vigilance Division of the organization concerned and acts as a special assistant/advisor to the Chief Executive in all matters pertaining to vigilance." .................................. .............................................................................. .............................................................................. .............................................................................. ............................................. "2.14.1
(i) ........................................................................ ...........
(ii) ........................................................................ ...........
(vii) To examine the inquiry officer's report, keeping in view the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence during the course of inquiry, and obtaining orders of the competent authority about further course of action to be taken and also obtaining the Commission's second stage advice and UPSC's advice where necessary."
7. Shri Bendre has also drawn our attention to Circular dated 14.3.2006 of Central Vigilance Commission. Para 2 (d) (iv) of which provides for comments of the CVO and the Disciplinary Authority on the assessment of evidence done by the Enquiry Authority etc. Thus, it is the submission of Shri Bendre that the role of CVO has been defined in terms of the above extracts of the CVC Manual which has been adopted by CWC. According to him, the queries raised by the appellant stand answered accordingly.
8. To this, the appellant would respond that even though he does not question the legality of the Manual, this Manual is essentially a guideline and CWC has to formulate specific rules in consonance with the Manual and till that happens, the role assigned to CVO does not stand on a legal footing.
DECISION
9. After hearing the parties and giving a thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the CWC has taken a clear and categorical stand that CVO has been assigned a certain role in terms of CVC Manual, duly adopted by CWC, and that other than that there are no separate rules defining the role of CVO. It appears to us that the queries raised by the appellant stand duly answered. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Addresses of parties :-
1. Shri J.V. Bendre 2. Dr. S.C. Batra DGM (Pers), Y-15, Hudco Place, Central Warehousing Corp. Andrews Ganj, Corporate Office, 4/1, New Delhi-110049 Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016