Central Information Commission
Avinash Kumar vs Gnctd on 2 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/105156
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/131422
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132591
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132983
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132989
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/133059
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/137172
CIC/DHSHD/C/2017/105822
CIC/DHSHD/C/2017/106754
CIC/DHSHD/C/2017/106811
CIC/SA/A/2016/001745-YA
Date of Hearing : 24.08.2017
Date of Decision : 24.08.2017
Date of Final Decision : 09.05.2018
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 14.06.2018
30.07.2018
Date Of Decision :
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Avinash Kumar
Respondent : PIO, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial
Hospital
Through:- Dr. Neeta-PIO, Dr.
Surendra Pal, Dr. A. Pal - PIO,
Mr. Buniyad Singh - Asstt.
Director-Vigilance
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAA
105156 11.11.2016 08.12.2016 16.12.2016 -
131422 11.08.2016 10.10.2016 10.11.2016 08.12.2016
132591 19.02.2017 21.03.2017 06.04.2014 29.04.2017
132983 06.03.2017 05.04.2017 11.04.2017 08.05.2017
132989 28.02.2017 21.03.2017 06.04.2017 29.04.2017
133059 03.03.2017 21.03.2017 06.04.2017 29.04.2017
137172 06.01.2017 30.01.2017 19.02.2017 20.03.2017
105822 01.03.2017 21.03.2017 06.04.2017 29.04.2017
106754 14.06.2016 28.07.2016 02.08.2016 -
106811 13.06.2016 04.08.2016 09.08.2016 -
Page 1 of 11
001745 29.02.2016 16.03.2016 11.04.2016 03.05.2016
Since both parties are same, the above mentioned appeals are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings.
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/105156 The complainant filed two RTI applications on 11.11.2016 asking information about Dr. Surender Singh (DMS) and Dr. Surender Pal (MS). In this respect complainant sought attested photocopy of joining reports, Biometric attendance reports, Leave application since date of joining and movement register of Dr. Surender Singh (DMS) and Dr. Surender Pal (MS).
The CPIO replied as under:-RTI ID No. 66
1. Sh. Surender Singh, DMS joined in this hospital on dated 31.08.2016.
2. Q. no. 2 to 4- Third Party.
RTI ID no. 67
1. Sh. Surender Pal, MS joined in this hospital on 22.07.2016 as Medical Supdt.
2. Q. No. 2 to 4 Third party.
3. Q. No. 5 Not available.
Being dissatisfied upon denial of information, complainant filed first appeal. The complainant's first appeal was transferred to the PIO, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital vide letter dated 21.12.2016. The FAA, Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, called for hearing 30.01.2017 at 02.00 PM vide letter dated 17.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are duly represented during the hearing and reiterate their respective stance as emerges from analysis of the records.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission is not convinced with the averments of the Respondents as it emerges from the records of the case because information sought does not qualify to be exempted from disclosure on account of relating to third party. Information sought pertains to official records of public officials and hence cannot be treated as third party information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the instant complaint to be converted into appeal to adjudicate the case appropriately and further holds that complete information as Page 2 of 11 sought by the appellant and as permissible under RTI Act should be made available to the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/131422 CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132983 Both the cases address similar queries and hence are clubbed for convenience of adjudication Vide RTI application dated 01.03.2017, the complainant sought following information:-
1. Attested photocopy of all supply orders issued in favour of M/s Vij Sons for the procurement of Medicine, Surgical items and General store items from 01.08.2016 to 28.02.2017.
2. Attested photocopy of all bills submitted by M/s Vij Sons and all sanction order issued against supply of medicines, surgical items and general store items from 01.08.2016 to 28.02.2017.
3. Attested photocopy of all supply orders issued in favour of M/s A.N. Enterprises for the procurement of medicines, surgical items and general store items from 01.08.2016 to 28.02.2017.
4. Attested photocopy of all bills submitted by M/s A.N. Enterprises and all sanction orders issued against supply of medicines, surgical items and general store items from 01.08.2016 to 28.02.2017.
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2017 as under:-
"Voluminous will consume lot of time at the cost of patients. Work related to the patient care will suffer.
In view of above you are kindly requested visit the department during working hours to prior appointment and to inspect the record and get the information relevant to you."
Being not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on the basis of information received from PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132983 Vide RTI application dated 06.03.2017, the complainant sought following information:-
1. Attested photocopy of demand letters given by store/users to authorities of BJRM Hospital for local purchase of Medicine.
2. Attested photocopy of all supply orders issued to the local chemist for supply of Medicine in the hospital.
3. Attested photocopy of Bill and sanction order for the same.
4. Attested photocopy of file noting sheets showing whole process, approval and sanction given by the M.S. of BJRM Hospital for process, approval and sanction given by the M.S. of BJRM Hospital for procurement of medicines through local purchase in BJRM Hospital.
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.04.2017 as under:-
"Voluminous will consume lot of time at the cost of patients. Work related to the patient care will suffer.Page 3 of 11
In view of above you are kindly requested visit the department during working hours to prior appointment and to inspect the record and get the information relevant to you."
Being not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on the basis of information received from PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
Both parties were present for hearing. From the averments of the appellant it became clear that the information had been sought by the appellant in order to unearth corrupt practices adopted in awarding tender to certain specific establishments for the procurement of surgical and medical items.
Respondent rebutted the allegations stating that no tender have been floated since last 3 years as policy matter and therefore the allegations of corruption as levelled by the appellant are completely unfounded.
Decision In view of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the Commission directs the instant complaints to be converted into appeals to adjudicate the cases appropriately. The Respondent is directed to furnish a Revised Reply about the exact status of procurement policy adopted by the Respondent, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132591 Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2017, the complainant sought following information:-
1. Name of all Medicines, its batch no., Expiry date and manufacturing date supplied from any source (CPA, Local purchase, other hospitals, etc) in BJRM Hospital for the period from 01.08.2016 to 15.02.2017 which were/are sent for drug analysis to CPA/DHS or any Govt. approved Lab or any other than Govt. Lab.
2. Attested photocopy of all Drug Analysis Report received by BJRM Hospital against Q.No. 1.
3. Attested photocopy of all Drug Analysis Report sent by Central procurement Agency (CPA), DHS before distribution of Medicines in BJRM Hospital.
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2017 as under:-
"Voluminous will consume lot of time at the cost of patients. Work related to the patient care will suffer.
In view of above you are kindly requested visit the department during working hours to prior appointment and to inspect the record and get the information relevant to you."
Being not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on the basis of information received from PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Page 4 of 11Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
Both parties present during the hearing reiterate their respective stance while the prime focus of the appellant remained his averment about unearthing corruption in the Respondent organisation. In response to a query raised by the Commission, the Respondent admits that correspondences indicating the batches of drugs being referred for testing and analysis can be made available from records.
Decision In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is deemed in the best interest that the complaint at hand be converted into an appeal such that appropriate remedy can be advanced to the appellant. On the basis of the facts of the case, as discussed during the hearing and position as it emerges from perusal of the records, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish the communications/letters indicating that the drugs were sent for test and analysis of their quality. Since the Drug Analysis Report is likely to be bulky, the appellant may inspect the relevant information from the files and Respondent is directed to co operate and provide all the relevant files for inspection, at a mutually convenient date and time.
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/132989 Vide RTI application dated 28.02.2017, the complainant sought information regarding purchases of 2ml, 5ml and 10ml Syringes in BJRM Hospital during 1 st December 2016 to 28th February 2017.
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2017 as under:-
"Voluminous will consume lot of time at the cost of patients. Work related to the patient care will suffer.
In view of above you are kindly requested visit the department during working hours to prior appointment and to inspect the record and get the information relevant to you."
Being not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on the basis of information received from PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Decision In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is deemed fit that the complaint at hand be converted into an appeal such that appropriate remedy can be advanced to the appellant. On the basis of the facts of the case, as discussed during the hearing and position as it emerges from perusal of the records, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a Revised Reply informing comprehensively about purchase of Syringes in the month of February 2017, in response to the RTI query of the appellant. The information should be provided within two weeks of receipt of this order.
Page 5 of 11CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/133059 Vide RTI application dated 03.03.2017, the complainant sought information about procurement of Mattresses for BJRM Hospital.
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2017 as under:-
"Voluminous will consume lot of time at the cost of patients. Work related to the patient care will suffer.
In view of above you are kindly requested visit the department during working hours to prior appointment and to inspect the record and get the information relevant to you."
Being not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on the basis of information received from PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Decision In view of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the Commission directs the instant complaint to be converted into Second appeal to address the query of the appellant appropriately. The Respondent is directed to furnish a Revised Reply about the exact status of procurement policy adopted by the Respondent with respect to mattresses, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/BJRMH/C/2017/137172 Vide RTI application dated 06.01.2017, the complainant sought information regarding the demand of AIR ambulance for BJRM Hospital raised by Dr. Avinash Kumar on 26.02.2016. The RTI application was transferred by the PIO, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital to PIO, Ministry H & FW vide letter dated 23.01.2017. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.01.2017 stated that file of air ambulance has been sent to competent authority through the office for further necessary action. Being not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on the basis of information received from PIO. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and both of them apart from reiterating their respective contentions as already placed on record before the Commission, level allegations of corruption against each other.
Decision From perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the submissions of both parties, the Commission notes that the information about air ambulances is indeed one asked in public interest and in fact national interest. With advancement of technology, medical treatments have undergone a sea change. In this context of advancement of medical practices, the query raised by the applicant is appreciable. The Commission finds that allegations and counter allegations of parties are rather insignificant and irrelevant when weighed with the query and thus may be put Page 6 of 11 aside, while addressing the query at hand with more fervour. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide information against each of the query with exact information providing the exact current status of the file, within a week of receipt of this order, positively under intimation to the Commission.
Since all three appeals refer to similar queries, all three of them are being clubbed for purpose of adjudication.
CIC/DHSHD/C/2017/105822 Vide RTI application dated 11.08.2016, the complainant sought information pertaining to Warehouse at GGSGH (Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital). The complainant sought guideline adopted, survey reports, planning and criteria of space identification done in selection and establishment of GGSGH Warehouse. He also sought total expenditure incurred in establishment of Warehouse in GGSGH and details of staff alongwith their name and designation posted in GGSGH Warehouse and other related information on 07. The RTI application was transferred by the PIO, DGHS to PIO, the Director (CPA), Central Procurement Agency. The PIO, DGHS furnished information enclosing reply furnished by the Director, CPA (Not enclosed). The FAA advised the Director, CPA to provide elaborate and specific information to the queries raised by the applicant. Further, the information pertaining to Warehouse at GGSG Hospital be obtained from MS, GGSG Hospital and provided to the complainant within 03 weeks. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the complainant approached the Commission.
CIC/DHSHD/C/2017/106754 CIC/DHSHD/C/2017/106811 Vide RTI application dated 14.06.2016, the complainant sought attested photocopies/information on 07 regarding request made by the Delhi Govt Hospital to CPA to do Drug Analysis. The CPIO requested to the complainant to submit photocopy fee i.e. Rs. 5508/-. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the complainant filed first appeal. The FAA did not adjudicate in the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts Both parties are present for the hearing and the appellant explains that he wanted to know whether the quality of the drugs being sold by the pharmacists and various hospitals are appropriately tested and approved by the Government monitoring agencies. He seeks the information free of cost since the CPIO reply was received belatedly. By a recent letter from the Respondent, the appellant has been apprised that the matter had been referred to the DGHS in January 2017. Respondent seeks to submit their contentions in the form of a written note. PIO, CPA cites work pressure being the reason for non furnishing of information on time. He also says the test reports are voluminous considering that thousands of medicines have been tested over the period of time.Page 7 of 11
Respondent/PIO, DGHS(HQ) has submitted a written note stating as follows:
"....The PIO, DGHS(HQ) already observed that the Central Procurement Agency(CPA) is not providing timely information, even if information is provided that is incomplete leading to First Appeal. It has been also observed that at the time of First Appeal the information available was not provided to the PIO, but provided in First Appeal. Accordingly, a letter dated 25.05.2016 was sent to Director, CPA.
However, the information was handed over/provided to Dr. Avinash Kumar vide CPA letter dated 18.08.2017. .."
Decision In view of the facts of the case, the Commission directs the Respondent-PIO, CPA to furnish information, in the form of Status report to be provided, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
The aforesaid appeals are thus disposed of.
CIC/SA/A/2016/001745 The appellant filed a complaint against corruption in Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital (AAAGH), GNCT of Delhi to CVC on 01.08.2013 as Whistle Blower under PIDPI resolution but unfortunately his identity was disclosed by M.S. AAAGH. CVC issued a complaint Ref no. 4726/13/10 and complaint forwarded to Chief Secretary /CVO on 26.09.2013 for investigation/action taken. In this regard appellant sought following information:-
1. Current status of CVC complaint Ref no. 4726/13/10
2. Details of movement of said complaint since 26.09.2013 to till date.
3. Enquiry report against CVC complaint Ref no. 4726/13/10
4. Copy of all letter/correspondences made by CVO with CVC in reference to the said complaint.
5. Copy of all letters/correspondences made by CVO with any other department/authorities in reference to said complaint.
6. Copy of all correspondences made by CVO in form of letter/reminders/order with CVC n this particular complaint.
7. Confirm that CVO has submitted the enquiry report to CVC along with date of submission.
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.04.2016 furnished the information to the appellant. Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA directed the PIO/AD to get the specific information in respect of point no. 1 to 3 after sending the reminder to Health & Family Welfare department and after getting the information, provide the same to the appellant within three weeks. The further FAA directed the PIO/AD to provide the specific information in respect of point nos. 4 to 6 as per record available to the appellant, free of cost, with three weeks. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission.
Page 8 of 11Relevant facts of the case:
Both parties are present and Appellant makes detailed submissions about the background of corrupt practices of some specific medical practitioners which gave rise to the appellant's queries. The appellant took steps to bring the wrongful practices to the notice of competent authorities and alleges to have been victimised consequent to a whole gamut of actions taken at various levels and forums including higher government officials, CVC, Ministry etc. Respondents also submit that actions were initiated at their end and the course of actions which followed the complaint from the appellant. Respondent also mentions that on similar allegations another complaint had been received from an NGO.
Decision In view of the detailed deliberations of both parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that proper analysis and appreciation of the facts of the case would entail that all of these pertinent facts be brought before the Commission. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant shall submit a detailed submission indicating a self contained chronology of events, as contended by the appellant during the course. This submission from the appellant must reach by 31.08.2017, the Respondents are free to submit their rebuttal by 08.09.2017.
Order reserved in case no. CIC/SA/A/2016/001745.
Final Decision: 09.05.2018 Pursuant to the captioned order of the Commission, the appellant has filed a detailed written submission dated 31.08.2017. The appellant has narrated complete chronology of events leading to the filing of various complaints by him. Since the allegations cast by the appellant in his submissions dated 31.08.2017 cannot be conclusively adjudicated without addressing the view of the Respondent-PIO/Directorate of Vigilance, comments from the respondent were awaited. Moreover, the communication dated 08.09.2017 by the PIO of C.S. Office, indicate that the information sought relates to the Directorate of Vigilance, hence this Commission vide letter dated 04.01.2018 sought comments from the Asstt. Director (Vig-III), Directorate of Vigilance, Delhi Secretariat. No response has been received so far from the Directorate of Vigilance, despite passage of four months.
The Commission is thus constrained to direct Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice upon the Asstt. Director (Vig-III), Directorate of Vigilance, Delhi Secretariat for wilful disregard of directions of the Commission and causing obstruction in the dissemination of information Page 9 of 11 and adjudication of the case. Reply to the Show Cause Notice should reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the hearing of the Show Cause case.
Show Cause Hearing: 14.06.2018 Prior to the hearing scheduled in the case, the Commission received a communication dated 06.06.2018 from Sh. Bijendra Kumar, Asstt. Director, Vigilance narrating that vide a detailed Reply dated 02.02.2018 a complete synopsis of the matter had been submitted by Assistant Director, Vigilance - Sh. Buniyad Singh. Perusal of records of the case reveal that the said submission dated 02.02.2018 referred by the Respondent in the letter dated 06.06.2018, has not reached the Commission nor was a part of records.
Examination of the submissions dated 02.02.2018 submitted alongwith the Reply, reveals as follows:
"In this regard, this is to inform that during the hearing, held on 24.08.2017, the relevant file was shown to Hon'ble Information Commissioner and Hon'ble Information Commissioner was further apprised about certain new facts which have emerged during the examination of the case and which are being taken up with the department concerned.
However, the brief facts are that two complaints were received alleging irregularities committed in the purchases made by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. These being CVC references, reports were sought from Health & Family Welfare Department in the CVC format to enable this Directorate to forward the same to CVC. However, report submitted by Health & Family Welfare Department was not as per CVC guidelines and hence Health & Family Welfare Department has been reminded, time and again, to furnish the said report in CVC format. Further, with regard to the new fact which emerged, this Directorate has sought clarifications from H&FW Department, GNCTD, vide letter dated 01.09.17, followed by reminder dated 06.11.17.
Further, the vigilance reports which were furnished by H&FW department, were forwarded to Central Vigilance Commission vide this Directorate's letter dated 06.09.17 and it was also informed to the Commission that the draft charge sheets against the concerned officials are under examination of this Directorate. Thereafter, CVC, vide its OM dated 06,09/10/17 advised GNCTD for a fresh proposal alongwith bio-data etc. of the officials, involved in the matter. This has been conveyed to H&FW Deptt. with the request to furnish complete report, assurance memo, draft charge sheet and bio-data of the officials involved, vide this Directorate's letter dated 06.11.17, followed by reminder dated 31.01.2018. Further, in this matter Health & Family Welfare Page 10 of 11 Department has filed an FIR No. 278, dated 13.07.2015 and has also referred the matter to Anti Corruption Branch. A total of three FIRs have been registered in the matter vide Nos. 473/14, 476/14, 278/15. ACB has also stated that a PE vide 12-2014 was registered in Anti Corruption Branch, the matter is being enquired into and the PE is in progress".
Decision: 30.07.2018 All the aspects of the case, emerging from the averments and records of the case have been examined thoroughly. The Commission notes that in the Compliance letter dated 02.02.2018 complete current status of the complaint/s have been demonstrated succinctly by the Noticee. It is evident that the PIO, Asstt. Director (Vig-III), Directorate of Vigilance, Delhi Secretariat has nowhere attempted to conceal any information and instead provided a complete factual backdrop of the actual status. In fact non receipt of the submissions dated 02.02.2018 on time at the Commission, led to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. However, perusal of the compliance report dated 02.02.2018 has established beyond doubt that no case of malafide delay or denial of information can be attributed to the Noticee. The penal proceedings initiated against the Noticee are thus dropped.
The file is closed and directed to be consigned to the Record Room.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 11 of 11