Central Information Commission
Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs Central Vigilance Commission (Cvc) on 21 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00713 dated 1-8-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary
Respondent: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
FACTS
By an application of 24-4-08 Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary of Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi applied to the CPIO, Ms. Shalini Darbari, Director, CVC seeking the following information:
"a. How many officers of DGDE have pending CVC complaints against them? Their names may be provided. b. How many officers of DGDE have been advised by CVC to be charge sheeted in last 5 years? Their names may be provided.
c. How many officers of DGDE have been awarded minor/ major penalty by CVC in the last 5 years? Their names may be provided.
d. In case of how many officers of DGDE has CVC closed their enquiry without recommending issue of charge sheet in last 10 years? The name of officers and CVC case no. may be provided.
e. In how many cases in last 10 years has the MoD seeked (sic) vigilance clearance for its officers from the CVC before relieving them on deputation?
f. Copy of original complaint in case no. 005/DEF/009/74214, and copy of reply given by MoD before October 2006 in the same case may be given?
g. Has CVC received any representation from Shri Ajay Choudhary during the period December 2006 March 2008? The date and detail of such representation may be given. h. What action has CVC taken on such representation till date."
To this Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary received a point-wise reply from CVC dated 27-5-08 as below:
"Para (a) Six complaints against the officers of DGDE are presently pending for investigation. The names of these officers cannot be given under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the matter is still under investigation.1
Para (b) The Commission had advised MOD to issue charge sheets to 12 officers of DGDE in last 5 years (From 2003 to 2007). The proceedings against 11 officers have not yet been finalized and, therefore their names cannot be provided to you. The name of twelfth officer is Shri Nagabhusana Sharma, DEO in whose case the proceedings have been finalized.
Para (c ) Commission does not award any minor/ major penalty. It is the Disciplinary Authority who imposes penalty on the delinquent officer. However, the Commission tenders its advice to the concerned department for imposition of minor/ major penalty. During last 5 years the Commission has advised imposition of major penalty against one officer. The name of the officer cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the disciplinary action has not yet been finalized. During the above period the Commission has also advised cut-in-pension against one officer and minor penalty.
Para (d) Commission has closed following cases of DGDE without recommending issue of charge sheet in the last 10 years:
S. No. CVC Case Name of officers
No. (S/Shri)
(i) 99/DEF/082 R C Bhola, Ex CEO
(ii) T/DEF/56 D P Bajawat, CEO
(iii) 000/DEF/079 J P Singh, CEO
(iv) 000/DEF/008 Subir Sanyal, ADEO
(v) 000/DEF/092 Ajay Kumar, DDG, DE
(vi) 000/DEF/075 Ashok Harnal, ADG
(vii) 000/DEF/015 Smt. Bhavna Singh,
CEO
(viii) 000/DEF/015 Balsharan Singh,
PDDE
Para (e)
Commission's clearance is not required for sending an officer on deputation. However, in case of Shri Ajay Kumar Choudhary, IDES, since M/o Defence had specifically sought vigilance clearance from the Commission, the advice was tendered to the Ministry.
Para (f) Copy of the original complaint dealt in F. No. 005/DEF/009 can not be given under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the case has not yet been concluded.
Para g & h 2 Shri Ajay Kumar Choudhary had submitted following representation to the Commission and the action taken on these representation is as under:-
S. No. Representatio Action taken
n dated
(i) 15.1.2007 Representation sent to Ministry of
Defence for necessary action as
deemed fit on 25.1.2007.
(ii) 25.7.2007 Ministry of Defence asked to refer
the case for Commission's advice.
(iii) 16.11.2007 Representation taken into
consideration while examining the
case.
(iv) 5.2.2008 Representation seen for
information as it was directly
addressed to DGDE.
Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary then moved a complaint before this Commission on 27-6-08 with the following plea:
"The reply given by the CPIO is 'incomplete and misleading') as:-
i) CVC vide OM No. 007/DEF/075/74599 dated 30th November, 2007 had tendered its advice of 'minor penalty against Shri O. P. Mishra, addl. D. G. & CVO (DGDE), MoD. This detail has not been provided in (Annex-B) making it incomplete and misleading.
ii) Vide CVC complaint no. 2324/07/09 dated 11th September 2007 a complaint had been registered against Shri Mohapatra, Director General, Defence Estates, MoD.
This information has also not been provided in Annex-B and therefore the reply of CPIO is incomplete and misleading.
iii) Reply to Para (a) & (b) of Annex-A does not include name of officers citing Section 8 of RTI Act. Giving the name of the officers is unlikely to hamper the investigation in anyway.
It is also important to be divulged because exercising biased and discretionary powers CVC has not proceeded against some officers, keeping the status of complaints unprogressed while MoD has granted vigilance clearance for 'promotion' & 'posting' to certain officers suppressing the requisitioned information."
3Upon this a notice was served by this Commission on CPIO Ms. Shalini Darbari on 22-9-09 seeking her comments on the complaint, which had been admitted u/s 18 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. In response to this notice we have received a report from CPIO Shri P.S. Gupta, Advisor, CVC in which he has submitted as follows:
"(i) The CPIO had provided information i.e. number of cases of officers where Commission closed cases without recommending issue of charge sheet during last 10 years i.e. for the period from Jan 1998 to December 2007. the complaint case of Shri O. P. Mishra was closed in the month of Jan 2008 and hence not included.
(ii) As regards complaint case against Shri C. R. Mohapatra on complaint No. 2324/09 dated 11.9.2007, the Commission had not taken a view as the investigation report called for the Ministry of Defence was awaited. As such the information provided was in order.
(iii) Names of the officers in reply to Para (a) and (b) have already been provided vide this office letter no.
CVC/RTI/08/071, dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure- IV)."
From this it would appear that simultaneously with the complaint before us Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary has moved an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority Shri Vineet K. Gupta in the CVC who in his order of 4-8-08 has allowed the appeal in part as follows:
"On examining the documents and connected papers pertaining to this appeal, as regards Para (a) and (b), I find that CPIO has not provided adequate reasons as to how disclosure would impede the process of investigation. CPIO may ,therefore, furnish the names of officers figuring in the six complaints (Para 4) and names of eleven officers (Para b) to the appellant within 10 days of this order.
As regards Para © , CPIO had informed that Commission advised imposition of major penalty, cut in pension and minor penalty against one officer each during last five years. On examining the records, I find that information supplied by CPIO in respect of Shri R. S. Cheema is correct. However, in respect of K. Louvem, Ex. CEO, Commission had advised imposition of a major penalty and not 'cut in pension' as informed by CPIO. This appears to have happened inadvertently due to wrong information furnished electronically in the input sheet, which was referred by the CPIO for culling out this information. Further, CPIO may also provide the 4 name of the other officer against whom imposition of major penalty was advised.
Regarding information supplied by CPIO with reference to Para (d) i.e. number of cases of officers where Commission closed without recommending issue of charge sheet during last ten years, CPIO had provided information during last ten years i.e. for the period Jan 1998 to December 2007. I find that the complaint case of Shri O. P. Mishra, was closed in the month of Jan, 2008 and hence not included. AS regards, complaint case against C. R. Mohapatra on complaint No. 2324/07/09 dated 11.9.2007, the Commission has not taken a view as the investigation report called for the Ministry of Defence is still awaited. As such, information provided by CPIO in this regard is in order."
Subsequently, in compliance with these directions CPIO & Advisor Shri P.S. Gupta, CVC has provided the following information to appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vide letter of 12-8-08:
"With regard to Para: (4) of above mentioned letter it is informed that Six complaints against the officers/ officials of DGDE are presently pending for investigation. The officers named in the complaints are as under:-
(i) S/Shri K. C. Chawla, CEO
(ii) KJS Chauhan, Ex CEO
(iii) CR Mahapatra, Addl DG
(iv) Officials of Ramgarh Chwani Parishad (individual names not available in complaint)
(v) Officials of Delhi Cantt. (individual names are not available in complaint).
(vi) Officials of Defence Estates, Kolkata (individual names not available in complaint).
The names of 11 officers against whom the Commission had advised issue of charge sheet are as under:
(i) S/ Shri J S Mahi, then CEO
(ii) B S Palekar, Supdt.
(iii) S R Nayyar, CEO.
(iv) T Arockianathan, CEO.
(v) P K Das, then SEO-I
(vi) R. S. Chandravanshi, SDO-1
(vii) B B Sharma, SDO-II
(viii) A P Singh, PD DE.
(ix) Ajay Kumar Choudhary, CEO
(x) Ved Prakash, the then Director
(xi) M Nautiyal, the then Principal Director.
5With regard to Para (5) of above mentioned letter it is informed that during last 5 years the Commission has advised imposition of major penalty against Shri Alok Gupta, DEO in addition to provisos two names i.e. S/Shri RS Cheema, CEO and R Louvem, Ex-CEO."
The appeal was heard on 21-12-09. The following are present:
- Respondents:
Shri Rajiv Verma, Under Secretary.
Shri Subrato Das, Section Officer Although informed of the date of hearing through our hearing notice of 8- 12-2009 appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Choudhary has opted not to be present.
DECISION NOTICE:
We find that simultaneously with the complaint before us appellant had also moved an appeal before 1st Appellate Authority in the CVC u/s 19 (1), which has been responded to by allowing further disclosure of information by an order that has been complied with. There is no appeal against the order of Appellate Authority Shri Vineet K. Gupta of 4-8-08. Under the circumstances, there remains no merit in this complaint, which is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 21-12-2009 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.
(Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 21-12-2009 6