The
Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 15 September 2015.
An RTI
request from an UDC of government hospital in New Delhi is a bad case of
appeal. It’s a repeated appeal, which
causes wastage of time of public authority and the Central Information
Commission (CIC). He is a misuser and his malicious intention is to threaten
and stall inquiry against him and employees like him for all times to come.
The vigilance
cell has investigated against him. He is seeking all papers about the service
and leave of officers who were witnesses who deposed against him in inquiry.
This RTI is a serious threat to the process of inquiry.
An example to
show how not to file an RTI request came to CIC. These are the cantankerous
points in brief of an RTI application by a disgruntled employee who was facing
an inquiry for misconduct. When Mr X, LDC, was posted in a government hospital,
New Delhi, and what were the duties assigned to him from time to time in each
section during his entire posting in the hospital till his compulsory
retirement? Please supply the certified copies of the posting orders,
assignment of duties and relieving orders?
Who was the
appointing authority and disciplinary authority in the case of Mr X and since
when he was removed from services? Please supply the certified copies of the
same. He also asked about leave account of an UDC. Similar points of
information were asked about an UDC, two DDOs and several other officers of the
hospital.
Another
peculiar demand is: Disclose names and designations of authorities who had
passed posting orders of nursing orderly/ LDC/ cashier to collect prescribed
fee of colour Doppler and USG in the Radiology Department from time to time and
supply the certified copies of the orders with postings details of each nursing
orderly, LDC and cashier from time to time in terms of the Receipt &
Payments Rules, 1963 and under which section these postings were made?
Provide the
details of cash receipt, amount deposited by nursing orderly /LDC to the
cashier during the period 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 in a particular
format.Then another set of questions asked by the petitioner was about inquiry
against his alleged misdeeds. Supply the certified copy of the Preliminary
Inquiry Report (against him, who was a DDO).
Give special
audit report given against him. Give a copy of report against Mr X, LDC, for
alleged embezzlement, copy of report containing adverse comments against him.
He sought several other aspects of information regarding handing and taking
over of incomplete cash book, and raised certain questions demanding some
answers.
He wanted
papers relating to duties of ten medical staff and para-medical staff members
like doctors, deputy medical superintendent, accounts officer, nurses and
pharmacists, who gave witness against him. This is not the way the Right to
Information should be exercised.
The Central
Public Information Officer (CPIO) sought copying cost of Rs 4,080, which
appellant paid. Around thousand papers were given. Still the first appellate
authority arranged information on certain points.
Undoubtedly,
it is a bad case of RTI appeal. It’s a repeated appeal, which causes wastage of
time of public authority and the Central Information Commission (CIC). He is a
misuser and his malicious intention is to threaten and stall inquiry against
him and employees like him for all times to come.
The vigilance
cell has investigated against him. He is seeking all papers about the service
and leave of officers who were witnesses who deposed against him in inquiry.
This RTI is a serious threat to the process of inquiry.
He is trying
to avoid inquiry and witch-hunt the complainants and witnesses. He is not
sparing officers who ordered inquiry or conducting inquiry or those just do not
agree with him. The appellant posed a challenge to the conduct of the inquiry
against him but also against the system of inquiry itself.
If this RTI
appeal is allowed and appellant is allowed to have this information, none will
complain against misconduct and indiscipline if any. Such a misuse will affect
the administration seriously.
It is totally
motivated by the personal vengeance. Complaints, witnesses and inquiry officers
are under threat of such misuse, which will surely impede the process of
investigation. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act states that: “Information, which
would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders.”
This is a
most dangerous misuse of the RTI Act which should never be encouraged. If the
appellant believes that he is innocent, he should be given every chance by the
Inquiry Officer to defend himself. If he is not given the chance, he has every
right to avail the legal remedies available to him under law. But he choose to
come through the RTI route to misuse the access to information to stall the
inquiry.
The PIO is
directed to put up the RTI request, copy of his first appeal and second appeal
of the appellant, before the Inquiry Officer for his consideration. The
respondent authority should frame a policy to prevent such misuse of RTI
against the inquiries /process of taking disciplinary action, questioning the
misconduct and inquiring into several other charges within reasonable time.
The charged
employees should necessarily appear before inquiry proceedings, without
threatening witnesses, complainants and others which impede the inquiry. The
Commission earlier rejected a similar appeal by the same appellant on July 6,
2015, observing it as abuse of RTI. He should have appeared before the inquiry
committee and presented case. Instead he is resorting to misuse of RTI.
The
Commission disposed of his earlier appeal for such mischievous request for information.
Deputy Secretary (vigilance), Dte. of Vigilance, GNCT of Delhi, informed that
the inquiry in the vigilance case has been completed and the case is under
consideration of competent authority for final action against the appellant.
In the absence
of public interest, the RTI request becomes a frivolous exercise and result in
the harassment of the officers and colleagues. The RTI Act is not meant for
stalling or demoralising the enquiries into the allegation of corruption or
misconduct unbecoming of a public officer. In this case employee chose to
harass the witnesses, enquiry officer and other colleagues who complained
against him. His aim is not seeking information that helps him in establishing
his innocence.
This
mischievous practice has to be discouraged. This is a destructive method of
using RTI for purposes of his private vengeance. This disgruntled employee is
trying to stall any action to be taken by anybody against anybody. The
Commissioners should be alert and active in avoiding such people, who do not
face the inquiry but try to stall it.
The public
authority should place this ‘mischievous’ misuse before the inquiry officer and
necessary action should be initiated against this misuse. If honest are not
courageous, corrupt employees dare to question the system.
By:Madabhushi
Sridhar
.JPG)
.JPG)
