Action taken against an employee who was arrested for domestic violence was sought - PIO: the matter is forwarded to the vigilance division; the appellant will be intimated when decision is made - CIC: intimate the present status of investigation
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought information with respect to Mr Jai Ram Singh who was arrested on the Court direction, seeking copy of intimation of arrest made by him to the respondent authority, in case not intimated what action being taken against him and present designation of him. PIO on point no 1 replied that no intimation made till date and forwarded the application to the concerned unit and on point no 2 the PIO referred to the CCS Rules 1965 which will be applicable. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority upheld the PIO reply. Claiming nonfurnishing of information as per the RTI application, the Appellant has approached the Commission in second Appeal.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
2. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant represented that the respondent authority did not furnish complete information and are indifferent to take any action against their employee Mr. Jai Ram Singh, who has been arrested on court’s order. In response to this the respondent Mr. RK Singhal, PIO did not offer any convincing submissions before the Commission. He only submitted that the intimation given by the appellant against the said employee is forwarded to their vigilance division, who are inquiring into the matter and very soon a decision will be taken and the appellant will be intimated accordingly. When Commission enquired the respondent officer about the crime committed by the said employee, about which inquiry was going on, the respondent officer revealed that it is about the domestic violence. The Commission finds that the PIO has given incomplete and indifferent answers. It reflects that he is trying to protect the delinquent employee. In this case, the wife has complained against their employee about domestic violence. The entire RTI wing of the respondent authority including FAA, has suppressed the information and misled the appellant. When the Commission pointed out this, the PIO Mr. RK Singhal requested for 10 days time to provide the entire information to the appellant. The Commission accordingly accepts the request of the PIO and directs him to provide complete and pointwise information to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order along with the present status of the investigation/departmental inquiry against the said employee. The Commission also directs the PIO to provide the certified copies of the correspondence letters or any other paper concerning the inquiry against the employee.
3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Citation: Ms. Shashi v. Delhi Jal Board in Case No. CIC/SA/C/2014/00157