The Indian Express: Chandigarh: Thursday, 18 April 2024.
Asserting that a senior IAS
officer has every right to obtain information about the approvals of two
inquiries launched against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), the Haryana
State Information Commission has directed the state information officer to
provide IAS officer D Suresh with the related information within 15 days.
State Chief Information Commissioner Vijai Vardhan Tuesday asked an under-secretary level officer of the state Chief Secretary’s office to provide Suresh, the Principal Resident Commissioner of Haryana Bhavan in New Delhi, with the information.
Suresh already has at least three inquiries instituted against him in connection with plot allotment cases in 2019 when he was the chief administrator of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (now HSVP). He is accused of causing financial losses to the state exchequer, an allegation denied by him. In one of the inquiries, the Haryana government had in July 2023 approved the Anti-Corruption Bureau (earlier, State Vigilance Bureau) to probe the officer in a related FIR.
In August 2023, Suresh sought information about noting sheets, orders and approvals relating to the three inquiries against him.
However, an under-secretary rank officer, Jitender Singla, who is the state public information officer in the Chief Secretary’s office, informed the State Information Commission that the solicited information was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant as two inquiries conducted by the ACB are under consideration of the government.
On the other hand, the IAS officer alleged that all the three inquiries conducted against him by the ACB were “illegal” because “no requisite/mandatory permission under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken from the government”.
After hearing averments of both parties, the Information Commission noted that “as per SOP dated 03.09.2021, the version of the appellant appears to be correct that against a public servant drawing pay at level 14 and 15 (as per the Seventh Pay Commission and its equivalent), only Director General of Police and Additional Director General of Police or equivalent can be assigned inquiry under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the instant case, the inquiry has been reportedly conducted by an officer who was engaged on a contractual basis after retirement.”
Referring to a Delhi High Court judgment, the Commission observed that “if the solicited information is not shared with the appellant, it would be tantamount to a violation of the principles of natural justice”. The Commission also observed that “to defend himself, the appellant (the IAS officer) has the right to obtain information solicited by him”.
The Information Commission further noted that in his letter to the IAS officer, the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) merely stated that the disclosure of vigilance-related information would impede the process of inquiry/investigation and hence the solicited information was denied.
“Thus, it is clear that the respondent SPIO has failed to reveal or mention how the disclosure of the solicited information would ‘impede’ the process of investigation as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 05.02. 2021…the appellant (IAS officer) has every right to obtain the solicited information relating to approvals of enquiry no. 13, 14, and approval granted under section 17A of the PC Act, 1988 to defend himself,” observed Vardhan, who was earlier the Chief Secretary of Haryana.
State Chief Information Commissioner Vijai Vardhan Tuesday asked an under-secretary level officer of the state Chief Secretary’s office to provide Suresh, the Principal Resident Commissioner of Haryana Bhavan in New Delhi, with the information.
Suresh already has at least three inquiries instituted against him in connection with plot allotment cases in 2019 when he was the chief administrator of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (now HSVP). He is accused of causing financial losses to the state exchequer, an allegation denied by him. In one of the inquiries, the Haryana government had in July 2023 approved the Anti-Corruption Bureau (earlier, State Vigilance Bureau) to probe the officer in a related FIR.
In August 2023, Suresh sought information about noting sheets, orders and approvals relating to the three inquiries against him.
However, an under-secretary rank officer, Jitender Singla, who is the state public information officer in the Chief Secretary’s office, informed the State Information Commission that the solicited information was denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant as two inquiries conducted by the ACB are under consideration of the government.
On the other hand, the IAS officer alleged that all the three inquiries conducted against him by the ACB were “illegal” because “no requisite/mandatory permission under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken from the government”.
After hearing averments of both parties, the Information Commission noted that “as per SOP dated 03.09.2021, the version of the appellant appears to be correct that against a public servant drawing pay at level 14 and 15 (as per the Seventh Pay Commission and its equivalent), only Director General of Police and Additional Director General of Police or equivalent can be assigned inquiry under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the instant case, the inquiry has been reportedly conducted by an officer who was engaged on a contractual basis after retirement.”
Referring to a Delhi High Court judgment, the Commission observed that “if the solicited information is not shared with the appellant, it would be tantamount to a violation of the principles of natural justice”. The Commission also observed that “to defend himself, the appellant (the IAS officer) has the right to obtain information solicited by him”.
The Information Commission further noted that in his letter to the IAS officer, the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) merely stated that the disclosure of vigilance-related information would impede the process of inquiry/investigation and hence the solicited information was denied.
“Thus, it is clear that the respondent SPIO has failed to reveal or mention how the disclosure of the solicited information would ‘impede’ the process of investigation as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 05.02. 2021…the appellant (IAS officer) has every right to obtain the solicited information relating to approvals of enquiry no. 13, 14, and approval granted under section 17A of the PC Act, 1988 to defend himself,” observed Vardhan, who was earlier the Chief Secretary of Haryana.
.JPG)
.JPG)
