Copy of Log book of an office vehicle was sought - CIC noted that the loss of log book was caimed after RTI application was filed & no action was taken against the driver - CIC: Show cause for raising illegal defence; Compensation of Rs. 5000/- awarded
Copy of Log book of an office vehicle was sought - CIC noticed that the driver had claimed about loss of log book after RTI application was filed & no action was taken against the driver; It indicated such suspicion that office did not want to disclose the log book - CIC: The PIO to show cause why maximum penalty should not imposed against him for raising illegal defence of a missing log book; Compensation of Rs. 5000/ awarded to the appellant for denying information
1. Appellant is present with Mr. S. P. Samwal. Mr. Vasu Dev, Manager (HR) represents Public authority.
2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for information pertaining to the log book of ambassador vehicle No. 6175 of DTL, containing entries for the month of August 2014 to March 2015, to whom the vehicle was allotted during this period, copy of DPC proceedings held in May 2006 regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Technical) etc. CPIO gave point wise reply on 29.6.2015. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. First appellate authority vide order dated 09.09.2015 held that the log book of Vehicle No. DL6CJ6175 attached with CVO is not traceable since 26.06.2015. A complaint in this regard has also been lodged with I.P. Estate, Police Station. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached the Commission.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. Both the parties made their submissions. Appellant wanted photocopy of log book of Ambassador Car No. 6175 of DTL, showing entry from August, 2014 to March 2015 and other details about the said vehicle. The vehicle was allotted to Chief Vigilance Officer, Mr. Geetanjali Gupta Kundra. After his transfer, the vehicle was not transferred back to HRD department. Appellant suspected that the vehicle was used for other purpose without authorization by Mr. S. P. Samwal, Deputy General Manager, DTL. 4. Mr. Vasu Dev, Manager (HR), CPIO has shown a letter dated 16.12.2014 written by Sandeep Babuta, Assistant Manager (T), Vigilance wherein it was stated that the vehicle may be allowed to use in the office of DGM(HR), Vigilance and Disciplinary Cell to cater day today work till the office of CVO is resumed by any other officer. On 16.02.2015 the vehicle along with driver, Shri Subhash Chander was allotted to the Secretary, MoP, GNCTD.
5. The officer claimed that he wrote letter to the driver of the vehicle Mr. Subhash on 02.09.2015 to submit log book of the vehicle within three days and a day before writing of letter, Mr. Subhash Chandra, driver lodged a complaint on 01.09.2015 at SHO, Delhi Police, IP Estate Police Station about loss of log book of vehicle. Appellant alleged that letter dated 01.09.2015 is supposed to have suppressed the situation, he says that it does not have any seal or stamp of Police which proves that it is fabricated one or not genuine.
6. Mr. S. P. Samwal, who attended hearing along with appellant, stated that the vehicle was misused during the period of Sept 2014 to March 2015. The office had allotted the vehicle to DGM (HR) Vig. during December, 2014 with intention of regular misuse of the vehicle. Only the Director, HRD is appropriate authority to allot the vehicle. The allocation of vehicle could only be done by the Director, HRD and not by MD of Vigilance Department.
7. The appellant stated that Manager (HR) being owner of the vehicle supposed to have log book and he did not even mention about possible missing of log book in his response to RTI application. It was only in a first appeal they come up with the contention of missing of log book.
8. The appellant alleged that Assistant Manager (Vigilance), Mr. Sandeep Babuta was using the vehicle, though he was not entitled. Though he was drawing TPT separately, he was using this vehicle for his family purpose. He was also allotted official vehicle for official purpose. Appellant alleged that missing of log book resulted in criminal conspiracy.
9. The Commission notices that the driver had claimed about loss of log book after RTI application was filed by the appellant and the Manager, HR did not take any action against the driver for the loss of log book. Generally, missing of log book is very serious matter to be probed into. The very fact is that log book was lost after one month i.e. 21.05.2015, and inaction of HR Manager indicated such suspicion that office did not want to disclose the log book. This has given suspicion to the appellant that since complaint of misplace of log book had been placed, he was repatriated to his parent department, Indian Council of Agriculture in Ministry of Agriculture from 11.06.2015. Mr. S. P. Samwal says that when he raised question of misuse of this vehicle, he was asked to keep silence and further he was repatriated to his original department.
10. Further the Commission notices that the Manager, HR was not making any effort since June, did not show any paper or file but said that he had not taken any major initiative or effort to trace the log book and conveniently facilitated the transfer of the driver, who had happily escaped from any liability for the loss of log book. The driver is now happily stayed with Ministry of Power.
11. The Commission directs the CPIO Mr. Vasu Dev, Manager (HR) to show cause why maximum penalty should not imposed against him for raising illegal defence of missing log book, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs PIO of DTL to file affidavit before this Commission explaining measures taken by them to trace the log book, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission directs the Director, HR to file affidavit explaining the details about missing of Log Book. The Commission also direct respondent authority to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/to the appellant for denying information. The Commission also directs Managing Director of DTL to consider this order as complaint which exposed the serious issue of mismanagement of log book, inefficiency of HR Division, alleged fabrication of document to suppress the misuse of vehicle and give action taken report to the Commission and the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Rajvir Singh v. Delhi Transco Limited in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001451