Expressindia.com;Saturday, Aug 13, 2011.
Ahmedabad: Court rejects his pleas challenging govt’s refusal to give grounds for the showcause served on him for not returning CDs of call records
A single-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court on Friday refused to grant any relief to IPS officer Rahul Sharma, who had moved court after being given a showcause notice by the state government.
The court rejected his petition challenging an order of the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the state Home Department denying him the documents related to the showcause notice.
The court also refused to hear Sharma’s other prayers related to the showcause notice on the ground that it was a service matter and it was not assigned with the roster of service matters.
Sharma, who is posted in Rajkot as the DIG (Arms Unit), was served with a showcause notice by the Home Department in February this year for not returning the original CDs containing mobile call details of a particular period during 2002 riots to the Ahmedabad City Detection of Crime Branch (DCB). The CDs had led to arrests of some high-profile personalities.
Following the showcause, Sharma had filed two applications an RTI application and a departmental application to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) demanding to know the grounds on which the state government had decided to issue him the showcause notice. However, both the applications were turned down by the state government after which Sharma moved the High Court.
In his petition, Sharma stated he had returned the CDs to the then Joint Commissioner of Police of DCB, P P Pandey, through a messenger.
Sharma’s petition was heard by the bench of Justice Abhilasha Kumari. As soon as the hearing began, the court said it could hear the petition to the extent of prayers where Sharma had challenged the action of the Home Department pertaining to the showcause notice because it was a service matter. The court said that according to the roster, it had been assigned with the petitions related to RTI Act and not the service matters.
Following this, Sinha said he would not press with the prayers related to service matters with a liberty to file a separate petition in that regard before the appropriate bench. The court then heard the petition regarding the rejection of Sharma’s RTI application by the PIO of the Home Department.
The PIO had rejected the RTI application citing a particular judgment of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) whereby it was held that documents related to some inquiry or departmental proceedings could not be given to the person against whom the inquiry has been done. While challenging the PIO’s order, Sharma had also sought to challenge the CIC’s order arguing it would prejudice his case before the RTI appellate authority.
Government Pleader and senior counsel Prakash Jani vehemently opposed Sharma’s application, arguing that a vigilant officer like Sharma had challenged the PIO’s order after a prolonged period of around five months. He also argued that the petition could not be allowed because the petitioner has an alternate remedy available by appealing before the appellate authority.
Refusing to agree with Sharma’s lawyer’s arguments in challenging the CIC’s order, the court observed that the petitioner is not a party to the said judgment and the reasons given by him to challenge the CIC’s order are neither “plausible” nor “tenable”.
The court also rejected the petition on the ground that “two avenues are still open to the petitioner” to challenge the order of the Public Information Officer.
.JPG)
.JPG)
