Moneylife: Pune: Thursday,
April 03, 2014.
Information
Commissioners usually ask PIOs to lodge an FIR in the police station in case a
file goes missing. In one case under the RTI, the CIC asked the PIO to
‘reconstruct’ the missing file to facilitate justice to a doctor allegedly
involved in a criminal case
When Jugal
Kishore, a Delhi resident asked for the file pertaining to a show cause notice
of one Dr Prashant Kumar of Lok Nayak Hospital, he was denied information by
the Public Information Officer (PIO) stating that the file was ‘missing’. When
Kishore went in for an appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ignored his
request. He then filed a second appeal to the Central Information Commissioner
(CIC).
The CIC
ordered the PIO and FAA to search for the ‘missing’ file and lodge a first
information report (FIR) at the police station about the missing file. Two
years went by and yet the file could not be found and FIR was also not lodged.
Considering that Dr Kumar’s fate lay in the finding of that file, CIC M Sridhar
Acharyulu in a historic decision asked the hospital to ‘reconstruct’ the
missing file in February 2014.
The CIC
stated, “Earlier, the Commission did not direct the Respondent to recreate the
file. Since the Commission found that Respondent Authority was not successful
in tracing the file, it is necessary in the interest of providing required
information by the Appellant, which might help him prove the innocence of Dr
Prashant Kumar, directs the PIO to collect the information from different
sources to reconstruct the file of Dr Prashant Kumar as far as possible. The
Appellant too offered to cooperate with the PIO in reconstructing the necessary
documents to prepare the file of Dr Prashant Kumar.”
Following is
the chronology of this interesting RTI case as projected in the CIC order of 24
February 2014.
•
Kishore
filed an RTI application dt.9.4.12 with the PIO, Lok Nayak Hospital (under
Section 7 of the RTI Act) seeking information against nine points with regard
to show cause notice issued to Dr Prashant Kumar He had also filed another RTI
application regarding payments made to Dr Kumar
•
On
not receiving any reply for both his applications he filed an appeal the
Appellate Authority reiterating his request for information.
•
The
Appellant, Kishore, made a second appeal stating that PIO has made it a
standard practice to say records are not available and FAA has made it a
practice not to respond or give any hearing.
•
During
the hearing, Dr Deepak Kumar Singh, Respondent Officer submitted that records
pertaining to Dr Prashant Kumar are not available. Kishore submitted that since
Dr Prashant is in prison, he is seeking information on behalf of Dr Prashant
Kumar.
•
Kishore
submitted that CIC had ordered the Appellate Authority to conduct an enquiry
u/s18(2) of the RTI Act into the whereabouts of the missing personal file of
Dr Prashant Kumar. The relevant portion of the order had stated: "…the
Commission believes that it will be in the interest of the appellant to remand
the case back to the First Appellate Authority with a direction that he/ she
conduct an enquiry as per provisions u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act into the
whereabouts of the missing personal file of Dr Prashant Kumar, fix the
responsibility and take appropriate action against the official found guilty of
having misplaced the file. The enquiry report as also the report on action taken
based on the outcome of the enquiry to be shared with the Appellant within four
weeks of receipt of this order. An FIR too may be lodged with the police about
the missing file once it is confirmed that the file remains untraceable. A copy
of the FIR may be shared with the Appellant.'' However, the hospital did not
comply by the order".
•
The
FAA informed the Commission that she had directed Dr Manju Mehra, AMS (Admn) to
file an FIR. Dr Manju Mehra, AMS (Admn) informed the Commission that she had not
filed the FIR with the police, since she felt that once the enquiry is over the
file can be reconstructed.
•
Since
the AMS (Admin) has given the reason for not lodging the FIR, the Commission
directed that now that the enquiry has been conducted and enquiry report shared
with the Appellant, the FIR may be lodged as directed by the Commission with
the concerned branch of Delhi Police and copy of FIR share with the Appellant
which was done.
•
All
through Kishore reiterated that Dr Prashant Kumar was implicated in a criminal
case and when he sought details of information from personal file of Dr
Prashant Kumar which was not made available to him since 2012. The CIC order
states, "He filed series of RTI applications and the matter came before Information
Commissioner in 2012. The Respondent Authority did not comply with the
directions of the Commission. The Appellant filed a non-compliance petition and
Commission took a very serious objection and warned the Respondent with serious
action considering that as willful violation of law. The Appellant pleaded that
this information would help him to prove the innocence of Dr Prashant Kumar in
a criminal case implicated by certain persons in the Public Authority. The
Appellant also cited fact of missing file and non-compliance of CIC orders as
indicators of biased action against Dr Prashant Kumar."
CIC concluded
in its order, "This case assumes very serious propositions and it affects
the liberty of Dr Prashant Kumar who is totally depending on the discovery of
missed file. There is a delay of more than two years in either tracing the file
or fixing up the responsibility. The so-called enquiry conducted did not yield
any result. Hence, the Commission is
compelled to recommend that the Minister for Health and Family Welfare,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to conduct an independent
enquiry without involving officers of Respondent Public Authority and giving an
opportunity to Appellant to provide his allegations against some of the
officers of Public Authority and to provide innocence of Dr Prashant Kumar. The
entire exercise is to be completed within two months of receipt of this order.
A copy of the enquiry report along with the action taken shall be shared with
the Appellant and the Commission within two weeks of completion of the
exercise.''
The deadline
for the enquiry report to be submitted to CIC is April.
.JPG)
.JPG)
