Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Through their communication dated 20.05.2009, the respondents, through their Deputy General Manager and CPIO, Shri P.K. Jha stated as follows:-

"On receipt of your directives, the matter was again taken up with the concerned Regional Office. After carrying out thorough research at their end, we have been apprised that after going through the relevant files pertaining to the documents, the missing documents are not traceable / available. We have been further apprised that Title Deed and Mortgage Deed, mentioned at Sl.No.3 & 5, of your communication are normally returned to the employee borrower once all the dues to the Public Authority in terms of loans advance have been fully recovered.

7. Reacting to the complainant's plea that the public authority should be directed to file a complaint with the police regarding missing documents, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that they felt no need for this. They stated that no criminal case was made out and it was their point that there was no criminal activity relating to these documents. They stated that the complainant should feel free to file a criminal complaint himself should in some way he feels aggrieved or that he feels that a criminal act had somehow been committed.

8. Complainant cited the decision of the Commission in Dr.Deepa Bhatia Vs. N.D.M.C. (Navyug Schools Educational Society); Appeal AT-27012010-06.doc No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00536 & 00540; Date of Decision: 30.10.2006 and demanded that CIC direct the respondents to file a criminal complaint with the police regarding the missing documents.

9. Complainant further stated that CIC should not close this case till such time as his concerns were fully addressed. He believes that he was engaged in an effort to unearth collusion between the lending agencies and borrowers in the misuse of House Building loans.

Decision:

10. This complainant has been provided several pieces of documents either by the respondents on their own or on the direction of the CIC. Now he demands that respondents take criminal action for what he believes to be theft of documents, which according to him ought to have been available in the records of the public authority, but were found mysteriously missing when complainant inspected the records on 18.11.2006.

11. I'm afraid this demand of the complainant is unsustainable. This matter is undoubtedly of 1989 vintage. Respondents have categorically stated that they are not in a position to state as to how the five documents were not available on the records as of now nor were they in a position to state whether these documents were at any time parts of the appropriate records nor whether these were at any point of time in the past returned to the borrower. On the question of whether there was any mala-fide in these documents not being traceable in the records now, respondents stated that mala-fide could not be assumed merely on the basis of so-called missing documents. They point to the fact that a vigilance enquiry in 2004, as admitted by the complainant himself, found nothing remiss in the housing loan transaction. They alleged that complainant was making all manner of allegations as he was pursuing a vendetta against the borrower of the loan, one Shri Narendra Singh Bakshi. The complainant's anger and hostility against the third-party and, the tenacity with which he has pursued his agenda against him, is surprising and unusual. Allegations of mala-fides against all and sundry was only to invest his personal vendetta against third-party with a superior purpose, i.e. combating corruption.