The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether defence organisations such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) can withhold information regarding transfer of an employee, claiming that they are exempted organisations under the Right to Information Act.
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda issued a notice to the Centre and the DRDO on a petition filed by Dr. Neelam Bhalla, a scientist, who was transferred to a different unit and has sought the reasons for her transfer under the RTI Act. Having failed to get relief before the Central Information Commission and the Delhi High Court, she has moved the apex court.
The petitioner contended that only those information which directly affected and correlated to “intelligence and security” could be exempted and would not apply to information which were general in nature.
She said this petition raised an important question of law as to the interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Information Act, vis–a-vis the exclusion of exempted organisations such as the DRDO. She said citizens were deprived of records relating to their services not being related to corruption and human rights violation.
She said the “wilful disclosure of incorrect or false or misleading information relating to routine matters such as transfer not only to the petitioner but also to higher authorities, namely the Minister of Defence and the National Commission for Women, to justify their actions, was an offence under the newly enacted Whistle Blowers Protection Act.”
She said she was a victim of gender discrimination and humiliation at the hands of senior scientists and in this context, filed a complaint before the NCW inter-alia alleging nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment and in particular that her task for the recruitment of scientists ‘B’ was selectively taken away. She prayed for a direction to the authorities to disclose the reasons for her transfer.
Sh. Narendra Modi ji, Honorable Prime Minister when asked about Indo-Pak relations he said “Talks get lost in the noise of bomb blasts.” It was a simple and effective way to convey the message to our neighbor.
Since 1999, when DRDO credentials were on stake due to the exposure of its strength in KARGIL WAR, the then Genral Malik openly criticized the role of DRDO.
DRDO planned to create a thunderous noise to divert the attention of the government and common people of India by simply launching missiles. After smelling the effect, it started missile launching roughly at the interval of fortnights with different variant of missiles like Prithvi, I, II, III, Akash, Agni I, II, III, IV, V, IV Nag, Trishul and ………….
All the developed nations have demonstrated the ability to analyze the failures and incorporated the corrective measures and are able to sell and generate revenue out of their research.
DRDO, however justifies the failures and with thunderous noise tries to divert the attention of government and common people of India who in turn pay crores and crores rupees for the development of missiles.
No practical data showed on photographs of missile launching or hitting the target has been shown to the nation. DRDO always released the launching flight scene but never demonstrated the kill probability. Why the matter of fact as per sources that last month Sh. Avinash Chandra witnessed the target hitting of a 100 KW laser Aditya which was suppose to hit moving targets. It was not able to hit static target, in fact it missed it by meters. The case of 20 KW Coil laser is also an example that without delivering the required output project main 16.58 Cr. equipment was mysteriously burned in fire accident but surprisingly DRDO announced that the project was successful and a successful completion letter from under secretary, MOD, Mr. Deb was put in project file to fool the government and common men of India who are paying the money for their misadventure. And the best part of this is that he project leader Dr. R K Tyagi got scientist of the year award from DRDO.
In 1991 Gulf war, Americans demonstrated the capability of Patriot missile’s hitting and intercepting the Scud missile and the scene was witnessed across the globe.
Can SA to RM demonstrate the same capability to our new Prime Minister Sh. Modi Ji? It will help him plan the defence preparedness to secure the boundary.
DRDO by far has a hidden agenda of launching a missile in every fortnight just to divert the attention of the government and common people of India from the rampant corruption of DRDO misappropriation of funds, misinterpretation of rules, the common practices noticed by the CGDA in special audit of DRDO.
Since the KARGIL WAR, incompetency has flourished in DRDO and has created a void as a result. Those who were supposed to retire from active service have managed during UPA government two to even three extensions with promotions ignoring Honorable Supreme Court and violating DoPT guidelines.
They are involved with 1000 crores of programs (of course without any end result) the commission/omission does not permit them to lose the extra income and perks and they are blessed by the competent authorities.
India has voted for a strong government in the centre and expecting new government will sense the weaker points and fix the accountability of DRDO. The government will look what was the compulsion of previous governments or in which circumstance they gave such unprecedented extension to such selected group of people like
Dr A S Pillai, CC&D, CEO, Brahmos touching 67 years CCR&D since 13th Sep. 1999.
Dr. SK Vasudeva, Ex Director, SPIC, DRDO after three successive extensions now working in contract
Sh Avinash Chander, SA to RM, DG, DRDO, Secretary, DRD presently in second extension and after November 2014 on contractual appointment.
5 Top DRDO senior officials are in second extension
Few directors of Labs are on second extension
And 60 to 62 years extension countless in DRDO
Extension business has created a vacuum in DRDO Hqrs. and if it continues probably there won’t be manpower available from active service to head the Lab and shoulder the responsibility of DRDO’s plan of action. “Here at present nobody is responsible for any outcome”
To 4th April 2014
Sh. Avinash Chander,
DG DRDO, SA to RM,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi – 110105
Subject: Misuse the Staff Car by Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Sir,
It is really very unfortunate that the Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur wasting the poor tax payer’s money with each and every manner and you are not taking it seriously.
The complaints, representations of his act & deeds piled in your good office. Hope you also got the fact finding inquiry chairman’s report from Dr S S Negi, Scientist ‘H’, IRDE, Dehradun.
Complaints regarding procurements, exposure of relation with suppliers, manipulation of all rules and regulation for personal gain, encouraging incompetent officials, administration failures, interacting with media without permission, giving false statement to media etc. cases are pending in your table.
Several complaints routing through CVC and Honorable Defence Minister also on the way but it seems like Krishan Bhagwan you are counting 95,96,97,98,99………. and waiting for 100th complaint.
Sir, today I have received a news clip and few photographs of Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and information regarding misuse of staff car. Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur used staff car for to visit outer area of Kanpur with family. Dr A K Saxena forgot the recent Supreme Court’s Order “The use of red lights on the vehicles carrying the holders of constitutional posts will in no mannercompromise with the dignity of other citizens and individuals or embolden them to think that they are superior to other people, more so, because this distinction would be available to them only while on duty and would be co-terminus with their tenure,” it said.
I think you have not conveyed yet the incident of Red Beacon Light with you recently while you are going to attend Director’s conference to Metcalf House.
Therefore, it is requested to take appropriate action against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur to honor the Supreme Court of India and save poor tax payers money.
Sh Devndra Singh Kshetri, Driver, Sh Hirendra Partap Singh, Senior Admin Assistant, Sh S N Singh, Senior Admin Assistant, Sh D P Shukla, Technical Officer, Sh Charanjit Singh Senior Admin Assistant
Master Tanmay Saxena, Master Tanuj Saxena, Mrs Depti Saxena enjoying the Red Light Safari’s ride
To, 4th April 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Recently on 24th March 2014 AAJ news paper published news on page 6 about the visit of Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE. (copy enclosed).
Whether Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE visited Pasikheda, Kanpur on 23 rd March 2014 on official visit. Yes/ No
If Yes the provide the copy of invitation letter from organizer to Director, DMSRDE to inaugurate the camp duly endorsed at registry of Director s Office
Provide the copy of log book entry of staff car No 11B111640E for 23rd March 2014
If visit of Dr A K Saxena along with family members by staff car was private then provide the details of money deposited / paid by Dr A K Saxenafor using staff car.
Amount of money paid as overtime allowance to Sh Devendra Singh Kshetri, Dirver for overtime duty for 23rd March 2014.
Whether Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur have any special permission to put red light on staff car against Supreme Court order.
Note: Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to re-examine issues related to the construction of a 16-storey apartment complex by Puravankara Projects Ltd. near the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) campus at C.V. Raman Nagar.
The court told the BBMP to look into every complaint by DRDO related to alleged violation of laws in the grant of approval for the building plans in 2007 and 2011 for construction of 660 flats at ‘Purva Seasons’, adjacent to the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR). The BBMP has been specifically directed to re-examine whether Puravankara had the title deed of the land when the plan was sanctioned. The court’s direction to Puravankara not to aerially encroach upon the defence land during construction by using cranes stays.
Setback to DRDO
The court did not entertain the DRDO’s contention that the project would pose a security and safety threat to various defence research wings in the vicinity. However, DRDO can approach the Supreme Court on the issue of keeping the land on which the project is coming up free of construction under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903. Pointing out that the DRDO could not produce any material on the safe distance to be maintained from a defence establishment, the court noticed that there are several other high-rise buildings like Bagmane Tech Park and August Park near the DRDO’s research wings.
The court observed that DRDO could not establish how only Puravankara’s project is affecting it.
British / Company Raj ruled this country for nearly 200 years and as result few Indian still does not believe that we are independent.
DRDO being the premier government organization, how come dishonored the standing instruction of honorable Supreme Court and the announcement made by honorable President.
The Supreme Court 10th December 2013 ruled that red beacon lights on vehicles can only be used by people listed as “high dignitaries”, that too only when they are on duty. Stating that the red beacons and multi-toned horns are reflective of “Raj mentality” and “an antithesis of the concept of a republic”
Recently Dr V K Saraswat, Ex D G, DRDO visited Gwalior to attend a social function on 15th & 16th December 2013.
The Director, DRDE, DRDO Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ provided his Ex- Boss a Siren / Red light fitted car, A Pilot Vehicle and an Innova Car escort. May be Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ not aware of 10th December 2013 Supreme Court’s direction or ?
Dr W.Selvamurthy, Ex CC R&D, DRDO and very big scientist as quoted by Dr Ashok K Chauhan, Founder President, Amity Group and Life Sciences big boss of DRDO never preferred Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ as Director, DRDE and offered him to join as Rajbhasha Director in DRDO Hqrs. However, Dr V K Saraswat observed Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik ability of follow of British Raj legacy and Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik also honored Dr V K Saraswat’s belif on him.
Prof. (Dr.) M.P. Kaushik Sc.`H’ has demonstrated his scientific ability through enclosed paper.
How can person involved in scientific fraud can able to run a scientific organisation with scientific ethics, what will be the quality of products out of such fraudulent research work.
Following are the links of his paper in which he has copied a major part from a foreign author, In one paper he has copied results of previous paper n shown as new compound, and surprisingly he is going to give one of the co-author of the paper as laboratory scientist of the year award for 2013.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority , DRDO
RTI Cell , Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Rajiv Chauhan
Address
1053/3, Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.)- 250005
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 received by appellant on 20 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 03 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.
(d) In point (3) of reply dated 09 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.
(e) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 03 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(f) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 03 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 03 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 03 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).
(h) It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter and public information, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.
(i) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter
(v) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(vi) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
2. Nature of information sought is not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ have violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as both did not submitted IPR , Movable property returns and valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against them under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. These officers are having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property. Both officers used black money to purchase property at high cost but declared on low cost by paying excess amount in black money for purchase of property. The black money involved in purchase of property came to them by means of corruption. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act (corruption) based on casteism as Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.
5. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return, Form 16 and Salary Slip are public documents. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
6. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Form 16 giving details of salary, house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.
Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated 16 February 2012.
7. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 09 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
The information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
8. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18
Every Government servant shall submit a return of his immovable property, movable and valuable property under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and 18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable property return and details of valuable property are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.
9. DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property
Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding”.
Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
10. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain in DRDO
As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group A officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website , PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar who are having disproportionate assets and are involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 03 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 13 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September2013. It is false to say that RTI was received after 10 days of dispatch. At the time when RTI dated 03 August 2013 was filed to DMSRDE, then on IPR of DMSRDE loaded on DRDO website was not having any property details of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ but after receiving RTI on 13th August, Public Authority (Director, DMSRDE) awaken and left his all the horses to manipulate the IPR data of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar and manage to put in record of DMSRDE by tempering and creating new data. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar on DRDO website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf.
This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about IPR of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, but as soon as RTI was filed on 03 Aug 2013 and received by PIO on 13 Aug 2013, whole manipulation took place with in three days only and data was published by creating new file. This indicates how DRDO/DMSRDE is protecting its corrupt officials.
viii. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.
11. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar are having disproportionate assets. The money, by which they purchase the disproportionate assets, came to them by means of corruption. The exact details will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar purchased the property in undervalued rates by making cost of property very lower than original cost on which other property were sale in that area on that particular month. There by it create loss to Government in terms of low registry fee and stamps duty used for registry of the property.
These officers did not declare their assets as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby they violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. They are liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar is involved in corruption in DMSRDE and earned black money which they invested in purchase of Immovable Property and Movable Property. Activity pertains to corruption by these officers created pecuniary loss of public money and interest of Government as their integrity is doubtful in light of disproportionate assets with them.
As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
These officials are involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.
12. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
13. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding “Immovable Property Return (IPR) of officers” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
14. Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 09 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
RTI Reply by DMSRDE
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE,
GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION
This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in) and DOPT Notification for publishing IPR of each officer working in Establishment on organization website.Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Information/Question
. S No.
Information Sought
Required Reply
1.
Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated.
Purchase value of property
Sources from which financed
Pl. provide details.
2.
Provide copies of the form submitted for giving prior intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(2) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all immovable properties acquired till 31 July , 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
3.
Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July,2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account/shares/investments/Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc.
Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts)
Pl. provide details.
4.
Provide copies of the form for giving intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(3) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
5.
Provide copies of final intimation in form 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rule 1964 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘D’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
6
Provide copies of the letters duly noted from DOP, DRDO HQ in respect of all immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
7.
Reasons on the basis of which details of immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D are not reflected in Immovable Property Return (IPR) of DMSRDE, Kanpur on DRDO Website.
Pl. provide details.
8-
Provide copies of Form 16 for the Financial Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.Provide copies of salary slips for month June, 2013 & July, 2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
9-
Copy of loan papers issued by private agency like Bank, LIC HFL etc on the basis of which rebate on HBA interest was claimed/allowed to Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
.
This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisionsconsistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.Examples of decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.
The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-4075/2012
Reserved on : 09.04.2013.
Pronounced on :17.04.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. Arun Kumar,
R/o P-25/5, DRDO Residential
Complex, Lucknow Road,
Timar Pur, Delhi-54. . Applicant
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary, Deptt. Of Defence
R&D and DG, DRDO, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Sameer Kumar Khare,
Chief Vigilance Officer,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
This is a second round of litigation. Earlier this applicant had filed OA-3293/2012, which was disposed of by this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-
24. Considering the aforesaid two sets of infirmities in the decision making process in the matter, we are of the considered views that the impugned communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 cannot be sustained and, therefore, those needs to be quashed. We accordingly set aside the same. We further provide that it would be open for the RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner, without getting influenced by the advice of the CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notes/files when the matter was subjudice before this Tribunal and take a considered view to accept or reject the recommendations of the Expert Committee. Obviously, if he does not accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee, appropriate decision should be taken at his level as per law, without being influenced by our observations in the order.
25. In view of the above, the Original Application stands disposed of in terms of our orders and observations leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Now the applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) To Quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 30.11.2012 being illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to release all retirement dues of the applicant without any delay.
To direct the respondents to issue relevant order for joining of applicant as Chairman CEPTAM as approved by ACC.
To allow the OA with costs.
Any other order or further order as the Honble Tribunal thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. Facts of this case have been gone into in great detail in OA-3293/2012 filed earlier by the applicant. We propose to only briefly mention them and then concentrate on the developments in the case subsequent to this Tribunals order dated 24.11.2012. We also do not propose to adjudicate again on the issues which have been covered in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was working at the level of Outstanding Scientist in DRDO in the pay scale of Rs. 67000-79000. According to him, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had also approved his appointment as Chairman, CEPTAM in DRDO for a period of three years from the date of joining. On the complaint of one Dr. Neelam Bhalla, Scientist-F of DRDO, submitted to various authorities, such as, CVC, Honble Raksha Mantri (RM), Cabinet Secretary, Womens Commission in Delhi, Secretary, DRDO and Vigilance Department of MOD, it was decided by RM to constitute an Expert Committee to enquire into the issue and ascertain whether there is any truth in the allegations made by Dr. Neelam Bhalla. The main allegation was that the applicant had committed irregularities and maneuvered the recruitment of Group-D Scientist in DRDO in such a way that he was able to secure appointment for his daughter Swati Srivastava. In the earlier OA, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Chief Vigilance Officer of MOD had sought CVC advice on the action to be taken on the complaint without taking orders of RM. CVC had advised initiation of major penalty against the applicant. In that OA, the applicant had pleaded before the Tribunal that CVCs advice is bound to influence the decision of the DA i.e. Honble RM, who was supposed to first take a decision on whether to proceed against the applicant or not and thereafter seek CVC advice. It was also pleaded before the Tribunal that the Expert Committee constituted by RM had exonerated the applicant and the recommendations of the Expert Committee had been accepted by the RM. Thus, the matter should be treated as closed. The Tribunal after hearing the pleadings of both sides had given the above mentioned judgment in the said case by which it was directed that it would be open for Honble RM to consider the report of the Expert Committee first on the allegations against the applicant in a dispassionate manner without getting influenced by the advice of CVC or prejudiced by the views already expressed in the notings in the file and take a considered view whether to accept or reject the recommendations of Expert Committee. On 30.11.2012, the respondents have passed the impugned order by which the applicant has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. Now, the applicant has assailed the suspension order before us through this O.A.
4. We propose to deal with each of the grounds on which the applicant has challenged the suspension order:-
(i) The first ground taken by him is that the impugned suspension order has been issued in defiance of the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012. According to the applicant, the Tribunal had specifically directed that Honble RM would take decision without being influenced by the advice of CVC or the notings made during the pendency of O.A. However, the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Defence has himself taken the file to Honble RM for passing the suspension order on the basis of same complaint and already quashed communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. Further, the applicant has alleged that the suspension order is biased because the respondents were determined to humiliate the applicant by all means. They have done so to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla.
4.1 In this connection, we have perused the original record of the department. In File No. 13011/6/D(Vig.II)/10 (Part File) on page-32/N, Honble RM has passed the following order:-
As advised by the Honble CAT P.B. New Delhi, I have gone through the report of DRDO expert committee and I am of the view that the report of the expert committee is full of contradictions as they have not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. The issues are as under:-
(i) Ms. Swati Srivastava, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar, the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO, had applied for the post of Scientist B in DRDO in 2004. Although dealing with the instant recruitment process of Scientist B in his official capacity, Dr. Arun Kumar did not inform the office in writing and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process.
Dr. Arun Kumar, manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology under the advertised subject Biotechnology, without issuing corrigendum or public notification. This was done solely in spite of the fact that there were 300 odd candidates with the requisite qualification in Biotechnology and was done solely to make Ms Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification Environmental Biotechnology.
Dr. Arun Kumar unjustifiably changed the criteria for shortlisting of applicants for the interview, such as introducing preference for NET qualified/ cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the existing criteria were followed and not manipulated in her favour.
2. From the above, I am of the view that the report of the expert committee could not give satisfactory and convincing reasons on the above mentioned issues, and therefore, the report is not accepted.
3. Hence, I find that it is a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules and guidelines. I hereby order that Dr. Arun Kumar may be placed under suspension with immediate effect before the action on disciplinary proceeding is processed. Since the first stage advice is required to be taken, let the matter be referred to CVC in accordance with the applicable rules.
We find from the aforesaid order that there is no reference to the advice of CVC or the communications dated 23.08.2012 and 05.09.2012. The order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned. He has ruled that the report of the Expert Committee was full of contradictions as they had not considered the issues before them with proper application of mind. Ms. Swati Srivastava D/o Dr. Arun Kumar (applicant and the then Additional Director, RAC, DRDO) had applied for the post of Scientist-B in DRDO in 2004. The applicant although dealing with this recruitment did not inform the office that his daughter was a candidate in the said selection process and did not recluse himself from the recruitment process. Honble RMs order further says that the applicant had manipulated the selection process to include the subject Environmental Biology with the advertised subject Biotechnology. This was done without issuing a corrigendum or public notification with the sole purpose of making Ms. Swati Srivastava eligible for the post since she was having qualification of Environmental Biotechnology. Further, the order says that the applicant unjustifiably changed the criteria for short listing the candidates for interview and introduced preference for NET qualified/cut off marks for university toppers etc. with the sole objective of extending undue benefit to his daughter, who would not have qualified for the interview if the unchanged criteria had been followed. Rejecting the report of the Expert Committee, Honble RM has directed that this was a fit case where a departmental inquiry should be instituted as per applicable rules. He has also directed that Dr. Arun Kumar be placed under suspension with immediate effect. Further, he has ordered that CVCs first stage advice may be taken in accordance with applicable rules.
4.2 In our considered opinion, the order passed by Honble RM is well reasoned and logical based on the material pertaining to the case. He has not been influenced by the advice of CVC as alleged by the applicant nor it appears that it has been done to satisfy false ego of respondent No.2 and complainant Dr. Neelam Bhalla. There is also nothing on record to show that Respondent No.2 has taken the file to Honble RM himself. Honble RMs order is of a date subsequent to the date on which Respondent No.2 saw the file. Thereafter, the file has been seen by Additional Secretary and Defence Secretary before being put upto Honble RM.
4.3 The second ground taken by the applicant is that respondent No.2 had no legal right to keep all the files containing the details of decision of Honble RM after receipt of High Power Committee report with him and after disposal of the OA by this Tribunal. As per rules and terms of this Tribunal, the decision on the Expert Committee report was required to be taken only by Honble RM on the filed to be submitted by Secretary, DRDO and not by MOD (Vigilance).
From the records produced by the department, we notice that the decision by Honble RM has been taken in the file of MOD(Vigilance). Respondent No.2, the Chief Vigilance Officer has made the following noting while submitting the case to Honble RM Honble RM may like to decide future course of action as mentioned in Para(4) of Note 28 above. The relevant Para-4 of the Note at page 28 is as follows:-
In view of the position explained above, the file is re-submitted to Honble R.M. for taking a decision on the findings of the DRDO committee in the matter as under:-
(a) To accept the recommendations of the Expert Committee/DRDO and close the case, in which case no action is required to be taken against Dr. Arun Kumar/shri A.K. Bansal.
OR
(b) To reject the report on the ground that the report was contradictory and has not covered major allegations as mentioned in the Table A (placed opposite) and to proceed ahead with the departmental enquiry based on the examination of the case by D (Vigilance). However, in this case Shri Arun Kumar will have to be placed under suspension [Under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-F/Y] with immediate effect as he is retiring on 30.11.2012 to avoid the case being time barred as per Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (F/X). It may be stated that as per Rule No.9(6)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972(F/Z), the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted from the date the Government Servant is placed under suspension.
We have also seen the order of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2012 and we find that there is no mention in that order that Respondent No.2 was not required to keep the file with him or that Honble RM has to take decision on the report of the Expert Committee in the DRDO file and not on the file of MOD (Vigilance). Thus, the contention of the applicant in this regard is without merit.
4.4 The next issue raised by the applicant is that even the relevant rules and instructions have been violated while passing the impugned order. According to CCS(CCA) Rules, suspension should not be made in a routine and casual manner. It can be issued only where continuation of an officer in service is either likely to prejudice investigation or subvert discipline or after holding preliminary inquiry a prima facie case is made out, which is likely to lead to major penalty. According to the applicant, none o these conditions are applicable and the applicant himself was to leave the office on account of attaining the age of superannuation.
The respondents in their reply have stated that the DA has taken the decision a
