CIC referred to Section 24(1) & observed that the Third party is not being called for his comments u/s 19(4) as there is apparent proof of corruption against him - PIO (DRDO) was directed to provide point wise information as available on record
25 Feb, 2017Date of hearing : 26.12.2016
Information sought:
The appellant levelled allegation against the then Director ARDE, Shri A M Datar of corruption charges and had sought the following information:
1. The exact monthly amount of TA drawn by the above stated person in his salary from Sep 2010 to May 2012.
2. Name of the officer responsible for providing misleading information that the Director had not drawn any TA for the period Feb 2009 to Mar 2012.
3. Copies of Car diaries from Feb 2009 to Dec 2011 and for Toyota Innova Car from Jan 2012 to Aug 2012.
4. Copies of all related correspondence and payment vouchers to the treasury.
5. Copy of the application of Shri A.M Datar to the finance section of ARDE, instructing them to stop deduction of TA from his salary from Sep 2010 and copy of application to start deduction of TA from his salary from May/ June 2012.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : CPIO, Shri RB Sharma, Scientist G CPIO, Shri Kulkarni (through VC)
During the hearing the appellant submitted that the then Director ARDE was involved in corrupt practices. Hence, information is disclosable. The CPIO claimed that DRDO is exempted u/s 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI act.
Appellant also submitted that he was also denied information earlier. The appellant had sent through mail his written submission wherein he submitted the copy of order No. RTI/02/2091/F/2012/0140 dated 05.11.2012 from FAA DRDO. He further submitted that originally he had applied for the said information on 07.09.12. The CPIO had denied information vide his reply dated 26.09.12. He filed first appeal on 04.10.12 and FAA had passed order on 05.11.12. He further submitted that he had filed second appeal on the above case which is not yet decided.
He further stated that again directly he requested FAA on 13.12.13 for this information, however vide his reply dated 13.01.14, the FAA had advised him to approach CPIO again and accordingly he filed the present RTI application on 31.08.14 for a fresh set of information. The RTI application which is relevant in this case is dated 31.08.14.
On perusal of the documents submitted before the Commission, it was seen that the following information was sought by the appellant in his RTI application:
1. The amount of Transport Allowance claimed by the Director during the period Feb 2009 to Aug 2012.
2. The Xerox copies of car diaries of office Ambassador car No. 02 B 82820 K from Feb 2009 to Dec 2011 and Toyota Innova Car No. 12B 111763 K from Jan 12 to Mar 12 exclusively used by Director, giving all details such as place of duty, everyday’s kilo-meter reading and time-out of vehicle from ARDE gate to Director’s residence usually in the morning and time-in of the vehicle after leaving Director at his residence, usually after office hours.
3. The names of drivers, who had driven the said cars for the period Feb 2009 to Aug 2012, and Xerox copies of respective drivers’ bills of overtime (OT) payment ( along with OT sanction note by the competent Authority) for performing duty to leave Director at his residence after office hours, during this period.
4. The date-wise record of CCTV cameras installed at ARDE gate and central foyer of main building, showing arrival of Shri A M datar, Director in office car, from his residence in the morning and departure of Director from office to his residence in the evening, for the period Feb 2009 to Mar 2012.
The then CPIO vide its reply dated 26th Sep 2012 refused the information stating that DRDO is placed in the second schedule of RTI Act 2005. The then FAA vide its order dated 05.11.2012 disposed of the first appeal dated 4th Oct 2012. The FAA ordered as follows:
“3. The appeal is perused and admitted by the undersigned and the comments were sought from the CPIO. The CPIO, ARDE submits the information as follows:
(i) The Director has not drawn any TA for the period.
(ii) The movements of the officers are not disclosable u/s 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: .
(iii) The drivers are paid OT as per the rules while the details are further deniable u/s 8(1)(j).”
The Commission took note of the above CPIO’s reply and FAA’s order for more clarity. On perusal of the above FAA order dated 05.11.2012, it is clear that the FAA had received comments from the CPIO and had replied accordingly.
The appellant found the order of the FAA erroneous in respect of Para (i) where the FAA stated that “The Director has not drawn any TA for the period.” Accordingly he filed the present RTI application dated 31.08.2014, asking for the following information:
“1) The exact monthly amount of TA drawn by Shri A M Datar, Director ARDE in his salary from Sep 2010 to May 2012.
2) The name of the officer, from Finance/ Admin group responsible for furnishing false and misleading information that Director had not drawn any TA for the period 4 (Feb 2009 to Mar 2012). It is learnt that the wrong information was provided due to undue influence exerted by Shri Datar.
3) Xerox copies of car diaries of Ambassador Car & Toyota Innova car used by Director ARDE for daily commuting, from Feb 2009 to Dec 2011 and Jan 2012 to May 2012 respectively.
4) It is suspected that after letters were submitted to HQrs intimating them about the misuse of vehicles by Director ARDE in Jan-Feb 12, whether he has reimbursed the amount of TA drawn by him from Sep 2010 to May 2012 to Govt treasury, presuming that such an act will, absolve him of the corruption charges? Whether he has paid any interest on this amount? Whether he had obtained permission from DRDO HQrs? Please issue me copies of all related correspondence and payment vouchers to the treasury.
5) Copy of application of Shri A M DATAR to the finance section, instructing them to stop deduction of TA from his salary from Sep 2010 and similarly a copy of application instructing them to start deducting TA again from his salary from May/Jun 2012.”
During the hearing the appellant submitted that there are documents to prove corrupt activities of Shri A M Datar and he had submitted copies of Form 16 of Shri A M Datar, for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
On perusal of the Form 16 under the I.T. Act, the appellant’s allegation was found to be substantiated. There were Transport allowance claim of Rs 19,200/- for which he got exemption for Rs 4800 for the period of 2010-11 and again TA claim of Rs 19,200/- for which he got exemption for Rs 9600 for the year 2011-12. Therefore, the proviso to Sec 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: is applicable in this case as there was prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
Therefore, the Commission finds it apt to discuss Sec 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: which reads as follows: (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
In view of the above statutory mandate it was imperative to find out any prima facie evidence of alleged corruption. The Third party Shri A M Datar is not being called for his comments u/s Sec 19(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party. of the RTI Act, as there is apparent proof of corruption against him and in larger public interest, the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to provide point wise information as available on record.
Accordingly, in view of the above facts and documents, the Commission find it logical to direct the present CPIO, DRDO, Shri Kulkarni to provide point wise information as available on record to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya]
Information Commissioner
Citation: Avinash v. M/o Defence, Commander- Art- Arms, Directorate Of Personnel Service, IHQ (Navy), File No : CIC/CC/C/2015/900072-AB