Alleging that some Ombudsman are undertaking frequent official journeys unnecessarily that too to destination outside their jurisdiction, the appellant alleged providing incorrect information by PIO - CIC: matter brought to be notice of Secretary

Alleging that some Ombudsman are undertaking frequent official journeys whereas their function do not necessarily envisage tour that too to destination outside their jurisdiction, the appellant alleged that Shri H.K. Sharan has been undertaking frequent “personal journeys” and showing them as his “official journeys”- He complained against PIO for providing incorrect information - CIC: the concerns expressed by Shri R.K. Jain, may be brought to the notice of Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat - CIC: no case of furnishing of incorrect information

ORDER

The present complaint, filed by Shri R.K. Jain against Cabinet Secretariat, was taken up for hearing on 19.03.2014 when the Respondents were present through Shri G.S. Panwar, Under Secretary ad Shri G.S. Kumar, Under Secretary. The Complainant was present in person.

2. The Complainant through an RTI application dated 29.04.2013 sought following information:

“(A) Please provide the Agenda Points and the Minutes of the Meeting dated 20-12-2012 regarding implementation of IS9001. The meeting was fixed by Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary, Performance Management Decision Committee of Cabinet Secretariat.  

(B) Please provide the List of the Members of the Panel/Committee as referred to in point (A) above and the order or OM by which Shri H.K. Sharan was appointed on the aforesaid Panel/Committee.

(C) Please provide copies of all the Notesheets from 01012012 till date relating to the File in which the matter regarding implementation of IS9001 is dealt with.”

3. The CPIO, Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat vide his letter 20.05.2013 furnished pointwise reply to the Complainant. As for point No. 1, he stated that there are no records available in the Performance Management Division (PMD), Cabinet Secretariat showing details of any such meeting held on 20.12.2012. As for point No. 2, he stated that “As per details given on page 1112 of the note on the ISO 9001 case file of the Performance Management Division (PMD), Cabinet Secretariat, Shri H.K. Sharan was included as a special invitee on the ISO: 9001 implementation committee constituted by PMD to scrutinize the ISO 9001 action plans received from the Ministries Departments. Though no formal orders/O.M. constituting the committee were issued, following is the composition of the committee:

(i) Dr. Prajapati Trivedi Chair

(ii) Shri Jugnu Gupta, Director Member Secretary

(iii) Shri R.L. Raichandani, Deputy Secretary Member

(iv) Shri S.B. Mandal, Deputy Secretary Member

(v) Shri H. Sharan Special Invitee.

It is added here that Shri H.K. Sharan is a member of Adhoc Task Force set up by this Division for 201213. A copy of order dated 28.12.2012 issued in this regard is enclosed. Copies of relevant noting are enclosed.” As for point No. 3, the CPIO enclosed copies of the relevant documents.

4. Thereafter the CPIO vide his letter dated 25.07.2013 sent another reply to the Appellant in partial modification of his earlier reply dated 20.05.2013. The relevant part of the CPIO’s reply dated 25.07.2013 reads as under: “…..with respect to point 1 it is stated that a meeting of Secretary (PM) and Shri H.K Sharan took place on 20.12.2013 in the chamber of Secretary (PM) on the issue of ISO 9001 implementation and the potential role of Shri Sharan in it. There was no formal agenda for the meeting but various issues were discussed…..”

5. The Complainant thereafter filed the instant complaint before the Commission inter alia alleging that the CPIO has given “wrong and incorrect information” to him.

6. During the hearing, the Complainant states that the information provided to him by the CPIO in respect of point (A) of his RTI application is incorrect and misleading. In this point the Complainant had sought following information: “Please provide the Agenda Points and the Minutes of the Meeting dated 20-12-2012 regarding implementation of IS9001. The meeting was fixed by Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary, Performance Management Decision Committee of Cabinet Secretariat.”

7. The Complainant points out that in his first reply the CPIO had denied the availability of any records in respect of the said meeting, while in his subsequent reply he changed his stand and stated that a meeting of Secretary (PM) and Shri H.K. Sharan had taken place on 20.12.2012, though no formal agenda for the meeting was issued. According to the Complainant, even this reply of the CPIO is not factually correct, but an attempt to shield the officer concerned Shri H.K. Sharan (Ombudsman Indirect Tax, Mumbai), who, according to the Complainant, has been undertaking frequent “personal journeys” and showing them as his “official journeys”. The Complainant also alleges that Shri Sharan has been misusing his position and undertaking tours to Delhi, which is his home town on false pretext. The Complainant, in support, produces before the Commission copies of certain documents, including three letters viz., letter No. ITO/Mumbai/Gen/2012/54 dated 26.12.2012 written by Shri H K Sharan to Ms. Rashmi Verma, Additional Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi; letter No. ITO/Mumbai Gen/2012/245 dated 12.06.2013 written by Shri H K Sharan to Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi; and letter No. Secy(PM)/Misc/2013 dated 21.06.2013 written by Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi to Shri H K Sharan. The relevant part of above letters reads as under: Letter No. ITO/Mumbai/Gen/2012/54 dated 26.12.2012 written by Shri H K Sharan to Ms. Rashmi Verma, Additional Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi: “As per the approved tour programme, I was supposed to come back to Mumbai on the 20th December. However, Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi fixed a meeting regarding implementation of ISO 9007 on the 20th December, after noon. I also overstayed at Delhi on 20th ad 21st December, 2012. The above extension may kindly be approved.” Letter No. ITO/Mumbai Gen/2012/245 dated 12.06.2013 written by Shri H K Sharan to Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi: “Dear Dr. Trivedi, After taking over as Ombudsman, Indirect Tax, Mumbai on the 31st October 2012, I did not have opportunity to contact you or meet you before I left for Mumbai. Therefore, during may say (sic) in Delhi during 18/19 December, 2012 on official tour, I had sought appointment from your Private Secretary to meet you to pay courtesy call and discuss some of the issues regarding implementation of IS 9001. Accordingly, appointment was fixed for me on the 20th December 2012. In pursuance of the appointment, I met you in the afternoon of the 20th December, 2012 in your chamber at Chankya Bhawan, Chanakaypuri office. Shri R.K. Jain, under RTI, has obtained information dated 20th May 2013 from PMD that there was no formal meeting of the ISO Group on that day and therefore, I have wrongly mentioned in my tour programme that I met you on the 20th December. Sir, kindly confirm our meeting on the 20th December, 2012……” Letter No. Secy(PM)/Misc/2013 dated 21.06.2013 written by Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi to Shri H K Sharan: “Dear Mr. Sharan, ……..It is correct that we had a meeting in my chamber on 20th December, 20012 regarding ISO 9001 implementation and your potential role in it……….. There was no formal agenda but various issued were discussed in this regard…..”

8. The Complainant thus on the basis of the above letter contends that there was no “formal” meeting which had taken place on 20.12.2012 between Shri H.K. Sharan and Dr. Prajapati Trivedi as stated by the CPIO in his modified reply dated 25.07.2013. It was admittedly a “courtesy call”. Further, Shri Sharan had made a false statement in his letter dated 26.12.2012 written to Ms. Rashmi Verma, Additional Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance that Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi fixed a meeting for 20.12.2012 with him, whereas an appointment (for courtesy call) was fixed by Private Secretary to Dr. Prajapati Trivedi on Shri Sharan’s behest. The Complainant also, while referring to letter dated 21.06.2013 of Dr. Trivedi, alleges that Dr. Trivedi is also protecting Shri Sharan. The Complainant also produces before the Commission a copy of Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2013 issued by Department of Revenue to all Income Tax Ombudsman including the Income Tax Ombudsman, Mumbai viz., Shri H.K. Sharan wherein it has been inter alia observed that some Ombudsman (Direct/Indirect) are undertaking frequent official journeys whereas the function of Direct/Indirect Tax Ombudsman do not necessarily envisaged tour that too to destination outside their jurisdiction. It has been inter alia directed in this OM that henceforth the Direct Tax Ombudsman and Indirect Tax Ombudsman will undertake all tours with the prior approval of Revenue Secretary. According to the Complainant this OM has been issued by the Department of Revenue on the basis of complaints/representation filed against Shri H.K. Sharan, Ombudsman, Indirect Tax, Mumbai in the matter. The Complainant thus seeks appropriate action in the matter.

9. The CPIO, Shri G.S. Panwar, present during the hearing, submits that he had forwarded the RTI application of the Complainant to the PPS to Secretary (PM) vide letter dated 10.05.2012 and had received the same back on 24.07.2013 with a remark of Secretary (PM): “As it turns out I did meet Shri Sharan.” Based on this reply of Secretary (PM), he sent the modified reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 25.07.2013. Shri Panwar thus submits that he has furnished the factual information to the Complainant.

10. On consideration of the submissions above and on perusal of records the Commission does not see any case of furnishing of incorrect information to the Complainant. The CPIO’s reply is factual and correct based on the records. Therefore no penal action is warranted in the present complaint. However, the concerns expressed by Shri R.K. Jain, the Complainant, mentioned hereinabove may be brought to the notice of Dr. Prajapati Trivedi, Secretary Performance Management Division, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi. A copy of this order may therefore also be sent to Dr. Prajapati Trivedi for his information.

11. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri R.K. Jain v. Cabinet Secretariat in Case No. CIC/SM/C/2013/000627SS