CIC: A former administrative officer of Prison Head quarters is resorting to RTI applications to delay the process of the departmental inquiry against him; There is no bona fide interest behind using RTI; The appellant is admonished for the misuse of RTI
4 Sep, 2016Summary:
Double murder in Jail, selling of prohibited articles, fight between the intimates of prison and the distribution of sale proceeds of prohibited articles, all present a pathetic picture of Tihar jail administration. This second appeal pertains to double murder inside the Jail in 1998 in a barrack housing 60 against its maximum capacity of 25 inmates. The inmates were selling prohibited articles like charas, beedis, tobacco, and disputes about that led to killings. Appellant was the Deputy Superintendent of Jail in charge of administrative work. The RTI application by the chargesheeted employees can be an impediment in the investigation. It is surprising that the way a former administrative officer of Prison Head quarters is resorting to RTI applications to avoid or delay the process of the departmental inquiry against him. He either knew that the information was not available with the office or that he himself had that information. It is clear that he is trying to delay the inquiry as far as possible and interested in running a parallel inquiry against the present officers to prevent any action against him and to stop department from conducting inquiry. There is no bona fide interest or public interest behind using RTI, but there are malafides. It is a case of misuse of the RTI by the appellant. The appellant is admonished for misuse and misbehavior. The RTI application itself is an impediment in the process of inquiry against him. This second appeal is rejected as frivolous, harassing and blatant misuse of RTI for purpose of delaying the inquiry. The Commission also recommends the department to conclude the inquiry and finalize the report as soon as possible. The Commission directs the PIO to report action taken to the Commission along with report of inquiry within 45 days.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant Shri Mahavir Singh was present. Respondents were represented by Shri Naresh Kumar, OS and Prabhat Tyagi, Tihar Jail.
Facts:
2. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for copy of FIR No. 440/98, copy of the charge sheet in the abovementioned case, copy of the judgment delivered on 17.08.2002, Copy of appeal filed in relation to the judgment, etc.
3. PIO for Point No. 1,5,6,8 & 12 denied the information taking exemption provided U/S 8(1) (h), For Point No. 3 stated that copy of the judgement was not available, For Point No. 4 stated that the question is not clear and for Point No. 7 provided the detail.
4. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA by his Order dated 28.07.2014 again stated that the information for Point No. 1,5,6,7,8 & 12 could not provided under section 8 (1)(h) and for Point No. 911 stated that the record was not available. Being unsatisfied with the reply of PIO and the Order of FAA, appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
Decision:
5. Appellant submitted that he had sought information in relation to a disciplinary proceeding for misconduct case in which he was charge sheeted. He stated that PIO initially by his reply dated 31.05.2014 had denied the information sought by the appellant as falling under exemption provided under Sec 8 (1)(h), Whereas, PIO, Jail No. III stated that information with respect to Point No. 9, 10 & 11 stated that the record was not available. Appellant submitted that this it proved that the respondent authority was not clear as to whether the exemption was applicable in the present case or not.
6. Respondent officer submitted that the inquiry against appellant was going on before Department of Vigilance and stated that if he needs any information he can obtain the same from them/ the investigating officer of the case. Respondent stated that the appellant is filing RTI application only with the purpose of delaying the investigation. Respondent further submitted that all the marked documents in inquiry against the appellant were given to him and entire material had been handed over to vigilance department. The documents sought by him in the present RTI application concerns third parties, who have refused their consent to furnish their information. Respondent officer further stated that the information sought by the appellant is not related to his case and the charges are independent of those of the appellant.
7. Respondent officer stated that most of the documents sought by the appellant has been given to him as per the list of documents at the beginning of the inquiry. Appellant was seeking copy of the charge sheet issued to other police officers involved in the same incident. The PIO said that the charges were different.
8. When I asked what exactly was happening when the appellant was in the office of Tihar Jail, he explained about the pathetic conditions prevalent in Tihar Jail, saying that prisoners were dealing in prohibited articles like charas, beedies, tobacco selling and negotiating/compromising, which led to a double murder inside the Jail in 1998 in a barrack housing 60 inmates against its maximum capacity of 25. Appellant was the Deputy Superintendent of Jail in charge of administrative work but claimed that he was not involved in the internal management of the Jail. He contended that the accused in the murder were discharged, but the department is trying to fix him in disciplinary case for this crime in jail.
9. Having heard the submission and perused the record, I find no legality in the information request. Instead, I find merit in the contention of the respondent authority that appellant was pursuing delaying tactics. The RTI application by the chargesheeted employees can be an impediment in the inquiry. It is shocking to note that a former administrative officer of Prison Head quarters is resorting to RTI applications to avoid or delay the process of the departmental inquiry against him. As an prison official and accused of disciplinary proceedings, appellant is supposed to have the documents, copies of judgments or appeal etc, produced during inquiry, which he is asking through RTI. He either knew that the information was not available with the office or that he himself had that information. On these two counts he cannot get anything beyond what he already had. It is clear that he is trying to delay the inquiry as far as possible and interested in running a parallel inquiry against the present officers to prevent any action against him and to stop department from conducting inquiry.
10. I saw no bona fides or public interest, but his RTI application is guided by mala fides. It is a misuse of the RTI by the appellant. This Act is not made for these officers, but for the people to question the conduct of such officers. I prefer to admonish the appellant for this kind of misuse. It appears to me that the RTI application itself an impediment in the process of inquiry against him. Double murder in Jail, selling of prohibited articles, fight between the inmates of prison over the distribution of sale proceeds of prohibited articles, all present a pathetic picture of culture in jail administration. I reject this second appeal because it is frivolous, harassing and blatant misuse of RTI for the sole purpose of delaying the inquiry.
11. I think the department should conclude the inquiry and finalize the report as soon as possible. I hereby direct the PIO to report action taken to appellant and my Registry along with report of inquiry within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mahavir Singh v. Directorate General of Prisons, Tihar in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001394