Central Information Commission
Arvind Parmar vs Central Vigilance Commission on 8 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2022/629590
Arvind Parmar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan, GPO
Complex, Block A, INA,
New Delhi-110023. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/04/2023
Date of Decision : 30/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 21/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 15/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12/04/2022
2nd Appeal dated : 01/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2022 seeking the following information:
Question 1:
Circular Date Circular Subject
06 August 2009 References to the Commission for first stage advice- procedure
regarding.
1) Kindly provide the following documents, which are required to be submitted by the Indian Oil, as per the above-mentioned circulars, along with additional 1 documents, if any, while seeking Commission's 1st stage advice. On receipt of these documents and its processing at the CVC end, the Commission has issued 1st stage advice vide Office Memo No. 010/POL/047-132603 dated 17.06.2011 to the Indian Oil for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Shri Arvind Parmar.
a) Annexure A,
b) Annexure B,
c) Annexure C,
d) Tabular statement as per circular dated 01.12.2008
e) Draft charge sheet and imputation of charge in respect of Sh Arvind Parmar alongwith investigation report.
2) In case, the above specified documents, as per the above referred CVC Circular, were not received alongwith the Case file at the CVC end, then kindly provide copy of the exception approval, if any, taken at the CVC end, for violation incurred at the Indian Oil end, for nonsubmission of the above specified documents, to the CVC alongwith the Case file, which is a violation of the above referred CVC's Circulars.
(i) Also, kindly provide copy of the exception approval, if any, taken at the CVC end, for overcoming violation of the above-mentioned Circular, incurred at the CVC end, and also for accepting the incomplete set of documents received from the Indian Oil against the above specified Circular, and issuing above-mentioned Office Memos to the Indian Oil after processing the Case file and advising the Indian Oil for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Shri Arvind Parmar.
(ii) Provide copies of the CVC Circulars / Guidelines, based on which such exception approval for the above-mentioned lapses, if any, has been taken at the CVC end, which permits the CVC for accepting the incomplete set of documents from the Indian Oil and processing the subject Case file at their end, and issuing above mentioned Office Memos to the Indian Oil for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Shri Arvind Parmar, in violation of the above referred CVC's Circular.
3) In case, no approval was taken for the above-mentioned lapses, if any, specify the reasons, for not taking any approval from the competent authority, for violation of the above referred CVC Circular, at the CVC end, and for processing the incomplete set of documents submitted by the Indian Oil and issuing above mentioned Office Memo to the Indian Oil for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Shri Arvind Parmar.
4) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circular / Guideline been issued against the above-mentioned Circular by the CVC, advising 2 the concerned Officials both at the Indian Oil end for not providing the complete set of documents, and also at the CVC end, for not seeking completed details, as per the abovementioned Circular, and thus allowing the CVC to process the Case file with incomplete set of documents received at the CVC end from the Indian Oil, in violation of the above-mentioned CVC Circular.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars/ Guidelines issued by the CVC, based on which the CVC has accepted and processed the incomplete set of documents at their end and issued the above-mentioned Office Memos to the Indian Oil for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Shri Arvind Parmar.
(ii) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil and the CVC, who have handled this Case file, have been left scot free, at the Indian Oil end and also at the CVC end, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
Question 2 Circular Date Circular Subject 09 November 2000 Advance copy of CVO investigation reports to CVC 16 January 2001 Advance copy of CVO investigation report to CVC
1) As per the requirement of the above Circulars, kindly provide advance copy of the CVO's investigation report received from the Indian Oil by the CVC, for the Case file mentioned in the above referred Office Memos.
2) In case, the advance copy of the CVO's investigation report was not received at the CVC end, as per the above-mentioned Circulars, for the Case file mentioned in the above referred Office Memos, then kindly provide copy of the exception approval, if any, taken from the competent authority at the CVC end, for violation of the above referred CVC's Circulars at the Indian Oil end and at the CVC end.
3) Provide copies of the CVC Circulars / Guidelines based on which, such exception approval for the above referred lapses, if any, has been taken at the CVC end for violation of the above referred CVC's Circulars at the Indian Oil end and at the CVC end.
4) In case, no approval has been taken for the above referred lapses, if any, specify the reasons, for not taking any approval from the competent authority, for 3 violation of the above referred CVC guidelines at the Indian Oil end and at the CVC end.
5) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circulars, has any revised Circular / Guideline been issued against the above-mentioned Circular by the CVC, advising the concerned Officials at the Indian Oil end for submitting the Case file, without following the above-mentioned Circular and permitting the CVC to process such Case file, just based on the documents received at their end.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines, based on which the CVC has accepted and processed the Case file, mentioned in the above referred Office Memos in violation of the above referred CVC's Circular.
(ii) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above mentioned CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil and the CVC, who have handled such matters of submitting and monitoring of the advance Reports to the CVC and its compilation / monitoring at the CVC end, have been left scot free, at the Indian Oil end and also at the CVC end, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
Question 3 Following Circulars have been issued from the CVC, to monitor timelines for a Case once registered by Public Sector Units and then referring it to the CVC for their advice and till the final decision is arrived against the Case.
Date Subject
19 February 1999 Reducing Delays in Departmental Inquiries
6 September 1999 Improving Vigilance Administration - Reducing Delays in
Departmental Inquiries
23 May 2000 Schedule of time limits in conducting investigations and
departmental inquiries
18 September 2002 Delay in Implementation of CVC's advice
27 February 2004 Delay in finalising of Vigilance Cases
26 April 2004 Reducing Delays in Departmental Inquiries
21 July 2006 Adherence to time limit in processing of disciplinary
cases.
21 September 2006 Delay in completion of departmental proceedings - reg.
4
09 March 2010 Timely completion of Departmental Inquiries -
Improving Vigilance Administration
1) Kindly provide copy of any register / documents, maintained at the CVC end, through which the CVC is monitoring implementation of the above specified guidelines and is also ensuring proper monitoring of the timelines of all the Cases, when these Case files are referred to the CVC for their advice.
2) Kindly provide copy of the register maintained at the CVC end, through which the CVC has ensured monitoring timelines of the Case file mentioned in the above referred Office Memos, issued by the CVC, based on the advice sought by the Indian Oil.
3) Kindly provide details of the actual timelines incurred at the CVC end for the Case file referred in the above-mentioned Office Memos vs the timelines specified in the above-mentioned Circulars / Guidelines.
4) For the Case file referred in the above-mentioned Office Memos, were the timelines specified in the above Circulars were adhered to against the actual timelines incurred at the CVC end?
(i) If no, then kindly specify the reasons, why the timelines specified in the CVC Circulars were not adhered to, even at the CVC end, whenever the Case file was referred to the CVC by the Indian Oil.
(ii) Has any action been initiated against the concerned Officers at the CVC end, for the delay, if any, incurred at the CVC end, while processing the subject Case file documents at the CVC end, which has resulted into violation of the specified timelines in the abovementioned Circulars at the CVC end itself, while communicating 1st stage and 2nd stage advice to the Indian Oil.
(iii) If yes, then has any action been taken against the concerned Officers at the CVC end for such delay, if any, then kindly provide copies of the actions taken report, against such Officers at the CVC end.
(iv) If no action have been taken against the concerned Officers at the CVC end, for the delay incurred at the CVC end, then kindly provide copy of the approval taken, if any, from the appropriate authority at the CVC end, for not taking any action against those concerned Officers of the CVC, who have knowingly violated the relevant timelines specified in the above- mentioned CVC Circulars at the CVC end.
5(v) In case, no approval has been taken for the delay, if any, in processing of the Case file at the CVC end, against the concerned CVC Officers, specify the reasons for not taking any approval for such violation of the CVC guidelines at the CVC end, against those Officers of the CVC, who have knowingly violated the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the CVC end.
(vi) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circular / Guideline been issued against the abovementioned Circulars by the CVC, advising the concerned CVC Officials, to process the Case file, without adhering to the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars.
(a) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines.
(b) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned CVC Officers, have been left scot free by the CVC, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular at the CVC end. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
5) (i) For a Case file wherein, the timelines specified in the above specified CVC Circulars have not been adhered to, by the concerned Organisation, then, has any action been taken against any Officer of the concerned Organisation by the CVC.
(ii) If yes, then kindly provide list of all such Officers with their Organisation name, since June 2010 to December 2014, wherein the scheduled timelines specified in the above specified CVC Circulars have not been adhered to, by the action has been taken against all such Officers of the Organisation, for not adhering to the timelines specified in the above referred CVC Circulars at the respective Organisations end, by the CVC.
(iii) If no action have been initiated against the concerned Officers of the Organisation at the CVC end for such violation, then specify the reasons, for not initiating any action against those Officer of the concerned Organisation, for violation of the timelines specified in the above referred CVC Circulars at the respective Organisations end, by the CVC.
6(iv) Kindly provide copy of the approval, if any, taken from the appropriate authority at the CVC end, for not taking any action against those Officers of the concerned Organisation and allowing them for to put up the Case file to the CVC without adhering to the timelines specified in the above referred CVC Circulars at the respective Organisations end.
(v) Kindly provide copy of the guidelines, if any, under which such approval has been taken, for not taking any action against those Officers of the concerned Organisation, who have violated the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the respective Organisations end, by the CVC.
(vi) In case, no approval has been taken at the CVC end, specify the reasons for not taking any approval against those Officers of the concerned Organisation, who have violated the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the respective Organisations end.
(vii) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circular / Guideline been issued against the abovementioned Circular by the CVC, advising the Officers of the concerned Organisation for putting up any Case file to the CVC, without adhering to the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the respective Organisations end.
(a) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines.
(b) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the Officers of the concerned Organisation have been left scot free, at the respective Organisations end and also by the CVC, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular at the CVC end. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
6) (i) For the subject Case file wherein, the timelines specified in the CVC Circulars, have not been adhered to by the Indian Oil then, has any action been taken against any Officer of Indian Oil by the CVC.
(ii) If yes, then kindly provide list of all such Officers with their name and designation, since September 2006 to December 2014, wherein the scheduled timelines specified in the CVC Circulars have not been adhered to, by the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil, and an action has been taken against all such Officers of the Indian Oil, for violation the above referred CVC Circulars at the Indian Oil end, by the CVC.
(iii) If no action has been initiated against the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil at the CVC end for such violation, then specify the reasons, for not initiating any 7 action against those Indian Oil Officers, who have violated the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars, at the Indian Oil end, by the CVC.
(iv) Kindly provide copy of the approval, if any, taken from the appropriate authority at the CVC end, for not taking any action against those Indian Oil Officers and allowing them to put up the subject Case file to the CVC, without adhering to the timelines specified in the above referred CVC Circulars, from the Indian Oil end, by the CVC.
(v) Kindly provide copy of the guidelines, if any, under which such approval has been taken for not taking any action against those Indian Oil Officers, who have violated the timelines specified in the above - mentioned CVC circulars at the Indian Oil end and the CVC is well aware of such violation.
(vi)In case, no approval has been taken at the CVC end, specify the reasons for not taking any approval against those Indian Oil Officers, who have knowingly violated the timelines specified in the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the Indian Oil end and the CVC is well aware of such violation.
(vii) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circular / Guideline been issued against the abovementioned Circular by the CVC, advising the concerned Indian Oil Officers to put up the subject Case file to the CVC, without adhering to the timelines specified in the abovementioned CVC Circulars.
(a) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines.
(b) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned Indian Oil Officers, who have handled this Case file, have been left scot free, at the Indian Oil end and also at the CVC end, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC.
Question 4 09 December 2003 Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Enterprises and the Role and Functions of the CVC Amendment to Para 32.3 thereof.
1) Kindly provide copies of the Report received at the CVC end from Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Oil from September 2006 till December 2014.
2) In case, no report has been received at the CVC end from Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Oil from September 2006 till December 2014, then provide copies of the action taken report, if any, against the concerned Indian Oil Officers, for not 8 submitting the required report, as per the above-mentioned CVC's Circular to the CVC, which is in violation of the above-mentioned CVC's Circular.
3) In case, no report has been received at the CVC end, from Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Oil from September 2006 till December 2014, then provide copies of the action taken report, if any, against the concerned CVC Officers, for not monitoring adherence of the above-mentioned CVC's Circulars by the Indian Oil, at the CVC end.
4) In case, no action has been taken against the concerned Officers at the CVC end or any Officer of the Indian Oil, for the above-mentioned lapses, if any, then specify the reasons for not taking any action against these Officers, for violation of the above-mentioned CVC guidelines at the CVC end.
5) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circulars / Guidelines have been issued by the CVC.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines.
(ii) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil and the CVC, who have handled such matters of communicating these Reports to the CVC and it's monitoring at the CVC end, have been left scot free, at the Indian Oil end and also at the CVC end, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
Question 5 08 January 2004 Obtaining Commission's advice in composite cases
1) This question has reference to the above-mentioned CVC Guidelines and to the Case file mentioned in the above-mentioned Office Memos, which has been issued by the CVC, based on the Case file referred to the CVC, by the Indian Oil, for seeking Commission's advice against Sh Arvind Parmar. Kindly confirm, for the matter pertaining to the year 2001, wherein Sh Arvind Parmar has been alleged to be involved in the Case file received at the CVC end, based on which, the CVC has issued the abovementioned Office Memos for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Sh Arvind Parmar, whether there is involvement of any other Indian Oil Officers, in the matter pertaining to the year 2001.
2) If yes, then kindly provide list of all such Indian Oil Officers involved in the matter pertaining to the year 2001, with their name, designation, alongwith their 9 lapses and recommendations, 1st stage and 2nd stage advice issued from the CVC end, against all these Officers, alongwith copies of the CVC recommendations and advise.
3) In case, no other Indian Oil Officers were involved in the matter pertaining to 2001, then specify the reasons, based on which the CVC has considered the subject Case file at their end, when it was referred by the Indian Oil for seeking Commission's advice, for the Case mentioned in the above Office Memos, against Sh Arvind Parmar for the matter pertaining to the year 2001, and the CVC have rendered their advice through the above mentioned Office Memos.
4) Provide copy of the relevant CVC's Circulars / Guidelines, based on which, the subject Case file of Sh Arvind Parmar, for the matter pertaining to the year 2001, has been accepted at the CVC end and after due consideration, have been processed at the CVC end, and necessary advice has been rendered by the CVC to the Indian Oil, for initiation of 'Major Penalty' proceedings against Shri Arvind Parmar, when it was referred to the CVC by the Indian Oil, for seeking Commission's advice.
Question 6 06 July 2006 Vigilance Administration- Role of CVO - regarding Above-mentioned circular specifies the following:
Quote:
The Commission's prior approval is necessary to take up any anonymous /pseudonymous complaint for investigation.
Unquote:
1) Kindly provide copies of the necessary prior approval provided by the Commission to the Indian Oil against the subject Case file referred in the above Office Memos.
2) In case, no prior approval was taken by the Indian Oil, while carrying out the investigation and submitting the Investigation Report alongwith the Case file, then based on the above referred Circular, has any query been raised on the Indian Oil by the CVC, after receipt of the subject Case file alongwith the Investigation Report at the CVC end.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of the Investigation Report alongwith the query raised to the Indian Oil and the reply, if any, received from the Indian Oil.10
a. In case, a query was raised, and no reply was received from the Indian Oil, then has any action been initiated against the concerned Officer of the Indian Oil for not responding to query raised on the Indian Oil by the CVC for violation of the above-mentioned Circular at the Indian Oil end.
b. If no, then reasons for not taking any action against the concerned Officer of the Indian Oil, who have not responded to the CVC's query raised on the Indian Oil for violation of the above-mentioned Circular at the Indian Oil end.
3) Kindly provide copy of the action taken report, if any, against the concerned Officer of the CVC, for not monitoring adherence of the above-mentioned CVC's Circulars by the Indian Oil, when the Indian Oil has referred the Case file mentioned in the above Office Memos to the CVC for their advice.
4) Kindly provide copy of the approval, if any, taken from the concerned authority at the CVC end, for not taking any action against the concerned Officers of the CVC, for not monitoring adherence of the above-mentioned CVC's Circulars by the Indian Oil, at the CVC end.
5) Kindly provide copy of the guidelines under which such approval, if any, has been taken, for not taking any action against the concerned Officers of the CVC, who have not monitored the violation of abovementioned CVC Circulars by the Indian Oil, at the CVC end.
6) In case of violation of the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the Indian Oil end, has CVC initiated any action against the concerned Indian Oil Officials for such violation of the above-mentioned CVC guidelines.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of the action taken report, if any, against the concerned Indian Oil Officers for violation of the above-mentioned CVC's Circulars.
(ii) If no, then kindly provide copy of the approval taken from the appropriate authority at the CVC end, for not taking any action against the concerned Indian Oil Officers for not adhering to the above-mentioned CVC Circulars.
(iii) Kindly provide copy of the guidelines under which such approval, if any, has been taken for not taking any action against the concerned Indian Oil Officers, who have violated the above-mentioned CVC Circulars at the Indian Oil end.
7) In case, no action has been taken against the concerned Officer of the CVC or the concerned Indian Oil Officer, for the above-mentioned lapses, specify the 11 reasons for not taking any action for violation of the above-mentioned CVC guidelines, at the CVC end.
8) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circulars / Guidelines have been issued by the CVC.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines.
(ii) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil and the CVC, who have handled this Case file, have been left scot free, at the Indian Oil end and also at the CVC end, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
Question 7 06 July 2006 Vigilance administration- Role of CVO - Regarding The above-mentioned circular specifies the following:
Quote:
The CVOs should take utmost care in sending the monthly report, which enables the Commission to assess their performance. They can attach additional sheets if they want to bring any special vigilance related issues to the notice of the Commission. A statement should also be enclosed along with the monthly report giving details of complaints/vigilance cases relating to Officials falling under the Commission's jurisdiction, which are pending for more than a year, giving reasons for delay.
Unquote:
1) Kindly provide copies of the monthly reports received at the CVC end from Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Oil from September 2006 till December 2014.
2) In case, no monthly reports have been received at the CVC end, from Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Oil from September 2006 till December 2014, then kindly provide copies of the action taken report, if any, against the concerned Officer of the CVC, for not monitoring the adherence of above-mentioned CVC's Circulars by the Indian Oil, at the CVC end.
3) In case, no monthly reports have been received at the CVC end from Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Oil from September 2006 till December 2014, then 12 provide copies of the action taken report, if any, against the concerned Officer of the Indian Oil, for not submitting the monthly reports as per the above-mentioned CVC's Circulars to the CVC, which is a violation of the above-mentioned CVC's Circulars.
4) In case, no action has been taken against the concerned Officer of the CVC or the concerned Indian Oil Officers, for the above-mentioned violation, if any, then specify the reasons for not taking any action for violation of the above-mentioned CVC guidelines at the CVC end and also at the Indian Oil end, by the CVC.
5) In supersession of the above referred CVC's Circular, has any revised Circulars / Guidelines have been issued by the CVC.
(i) If yes, then kindly provide copy of such relevant revised Circulars / Guidelines.
(ii) If no revised Circular / Guideline have been issued against the above specified CVC Guidelines by the CVC, then the concerned Officers of the Indian Oil and the CVC, who have handled such matters of monthly reports at the Indian Oil end and the CVC end, have been left scot free, at the Indian Oil end and at the CVC end, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular, by the CVC. Kindly provide the reasons for such generosity shown, towards these Officers, for their known violation of the above referred CVC's Circular by the CVC.
Question 8 Kindly confirm, whether all the Circulars / Guidelines issued by the CVC and which are required to be followed by and adhered to, have been followed and adhered by the Indian Oil, while seeking Commission's advice against Sh Arvind Parmar for the Case file referred in the abovementioned Office Memos of the CVC.
1) In case all the Circulars / Guidelines issued by the CVC were not been followed and adhered by the Indian Oil and there is violation of any of the CVC guidelines by the Indian Oil, then kindly provide the relevant details of such Circulars / Guidelines violated by the Indian Oil.
2) Kindly provide the reasons for accepting the subject Case file with violation of the relevant CVC guidelines, if any, at the Indian Oil end, by the CVC.
3) Has any action been initiated against the concerned Indian Oil Officers for the violation of the relevant guidelines, if any, at the Indian Oil end, by the CVC? If yes, kindly provide copy of the same.
134) If no, specify the reasons for not initiating any action for such known violation by the CVC.
Question 9 Kindly confirm, whether all the Circulars / Guidelines issued by the CVC and which are required to be followed by and adhered to, have been followed and adhered at the CVC end also, while advising to the Indian Oil, when Commission's advice was sought by the Indian Oil, for seeking Commission's advice against Sh Arvind Parmar for the Case mentioned in the above mentioned Office Memos.
1) In case all the Circulars / Guidelines issued by the CVC have not been followed and adhered by the CVC and there is violation of any of the CVC guidelines at the CVC end itself, kindly provide the relevant details of such guidelines violated by the CVC.
2) Kindly provide the reasons for accepting and processing the subject Case file with violation of the relevant CVC guidelines, if any, at the CVC end, by the CVC.
3) Has any action been initiated against the concerned CVC Officers for the violation of the relevant guidelines, if any, at the CVC end itself, by the CVC? If yes, kindly provide copy of the same.
4) If no, specify the reasons for not initiating any action for such known violation by the CVC."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 21.02.2022 stating as under:
"The reply to your online RTI appliation is as under:-
B: As per record avaible, all notings (p.1-10/N) and all Correspondence (P.1-119/C) has already been provided to you on 20.09.2017.
Reply to Question 1 to 9 is as under:-
Further, it has been observed that the issued raised by you are in the form of seeking redressal of grievances; which do not constitute 'informaiton' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This view have been uphled by the CIC in cse No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00821 in the case of Mrs. Ashi Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi in which CIC held that "the grievance of Appellant cannot find redressal under the RTI Act, 2005"."14
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2022. FAA's order dated 12.04.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"I wish to submit that only after going through all the mentioned documents received from the CVC end on 20.09.2017, the subject RTI queries have been raised by the undersign.
Documents sought under the subject RTI dated 27.01.2022 are set of specific documents pertaining to compliance of various Circulars / Guidelines from the Indian Oil end, while referring the Case file to the CVC.
This RTI was made as these specific documents were not provided on 20.09.2017 from the CVC end.
However, reply received from the CVC end was without any copies of these specific documents. Naturally, these specific documents should have been part of the compliance of various Circulars / Guidelines required to be followed by the Indian Oil, while referring a Case file to the CVC.
xxx In order to show its supremacy over the Indian Oil, it has dictated the penalty (vide letter reference 010/POL/047-132603 dated 17.06.2011, 010/POL/047227345 dated 27.09.2013 and 010/POL/047/258177 dated 26.08.2014) on the Applicant violating all their laid down procedures, Circulars / Guidelines issued from their end and without any documentary evidence and is also against the law of natural justice.
This clearly reflects that for the sake of their authoritarian perspective only various Circulars / Guidelines have been issued from their end. However, in real world, neither the concerned organisations are being forced to implement the same, nor the CVC is having any mechanism to monitor the implementation of various Circulars / Guidelines.
Thus, an humble appeal is being made for kindly advising the CVC to provide me copies of these specific documents which are pertaining to the compliance of relevant Circulars / Guidelines by the Indian Oil while referring the Case file to the CVC and which have been sought under the subject RTI by the undersign."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-15
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Ram Avtar Meena, Director & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated at length his arguments on the lines of his grounds of Second Appeal as mentioned above, by and large questioning the action of CVC in the imposition of major penalty against him in disciplinary proceedings.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the RTI Application exceeds the word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Based on the material placed on record by the Appellant suggesting his angst against the major penalty imposed on him, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant is harbouring a certain grievance in the backdrop of which he has raised the averred interrogative queries. From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO and is at a loss to comprehend the relief or the action that is being desired by the Appellant through the said appeal.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.." In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the 16 matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any 17 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 18 The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 19