A suspended employee sought information regarding action taken on his grievances related letter - CIC admonished the appellant & asked the Public Authority to inform the action taken by them in tackling insubordination of the employees like the appellant
10 Mar, 2016A suspended employee sought for information in relation to action taken on his letter pertaining to his grievances. The CIC noted that these RTI applications are repetitions of the earlier ones and there is no public interest involved in his appeals. Holding that it cannot encourage this kind of indiscipline by the disgruntled suspended employees, the CIC admonished the appellant for abusing the RTI Act. The CIC further observed that choosing the way of RTI against one’s officers tantamount to obstructing them from performing their duties, harassing them and choking the office work with frequent and vexatious RTI applications and it is sheer insubordination on the part of the appellant against his senior officers. The Public Authority is expected to maintain discipline in the office. The higher officers have legal duty to secure morale of officers who are questioning the indiscipline of subordinate officers. The CIC asked the Public Authority to inform the Commission as to the action taken by them in tackling the insubordination of the employees like the appellant.
Information sought:
3. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information on 10 points namely, Kirti Balla as a Technical officer was posted from which date in Depot2; Route No. 761 is serviced by which depot, copy of the circular in which it was stated that depot manager has to follow the memo issued by Scindia House..etc
PIO response: 4. PIO provided Parawise reply to the appellant.
Ground for First Appeal: 5. Incomplete information furnished by PIO.
First Appellate Authority Order:
6. PIO (West) was directed to provide specific reply of Point No. 3,5,6,7 & 8 to the appellant within 15 days.
Ground For Second Appeal:
7. That the PIO be directed to provide complete information to the appellant.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001368
RTI: 8114 Reply: Time: FAA: 12214 FAO: 3314 Time: 21 days SA: 16914
Hearing:18315
Decision:
Result: Disposed of
Observation: Misuse of RTI
Information sought:
8. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation Sh B P Nigam, Sr Mgr DTC, namely which depot he had been appointed as DM, how many employees have been suspended by him, in how many regions he had worked as RM..etc
PIO response: 9. Not attached
Ground for First Appeal: 10. Unsatisfied with the information furnished by PIO.
First Appellate Authority Order:
11. PIO (West) was directed to provide specific and to the point information on Point No. 4 & 6 to the appellant within 15 days.
Ground For Second Appeal:
12. That the PIO be directed to furnish complete information to the appellant.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001369
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 15-1-14 Reply: 17-2-14 Time: 32 days FAA: 12-2-14 FAO: 3-3-14 Time: 21 days SA: 16-9-14
Hearing:18-3-15
Decision:
Result: Disposed of
Observation: Misuse of RTI
Information sought:
13. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to action taken on his letter dated 6.12.2013 & 26.12.2013 pertaining to his grievances.
Ground for First Appeal:
14. Nonfurnishing of information within the prescribed period by PIO.
PIO response (After First Appeal):
15. PIO provided the relevant Order concerning his representation.
First Appellate Authority Order:
16. PIO (W) was directed to provide the status of both the applications addressed to CMD within 15 days.
Ground For Second Appeal :
17. NonCompliance of FAA Order by PIO.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001370
RTI: 12-2-2014 Reply: Time: FAA: 7-4-14 FAO: 9-4-14 Time: 2 days SA: 16-9-14
Hearing: 18-3-2015
Decision:
Result: Disposed of
Observation: Misuse of RTI
Information sought:
18. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to Sh B P Nigam, depot Manager
Ground for First Appeal:
19. Nonfurnishing of information within the prescribed period by PIO.
First Appellate Authority Order:
20. PIO was directed to provide specific reply on Point No. 6 to the appellant.
Ground For Second Appeal : 21. That the PIO be directed to provide complete information.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
CIC/SA/A/2014/001367 CIC/SA/A/2014/001368 CIC/SA/A/2014/001369 CIC/SA/A/2014/001370
22. Both the parties made their submissions in all the four appeals above. The appellant is a suspended employee having been censured for his misbehavior with a lady officer by name Ms. Kirti Bhalla under whom the appellant was reporting. The Commission has heard the subject matter of the present case in CIC/SA/A/2014/000615/616 also, in which the Commission had observed as follows :
“The Commission found that appellant has, instead of attending the inquiry and defending his case, perpetuating the mischief of using the RTI for advancing his personal vegeance against officers or others involved in inquiry. Every employee has rights to secure his employment but also has duties to perform the job without resorting to misconduct or any other irregularity. The employee also has right to get the copy of complaint, notice, charge sheet and every piece of paper which is relied on against him. He should get the opportunity also to defend himself. At the end he should also get the copy of enquiry report/order/judgment or sentence pronounced along with right of appeal. He has all rights as per principles of natural justice and if there is any lapse, or suppression of information or document or nonsupply of papers relied on by the disciplinary authority, he can seek them from the inquiry officer or authority, if not, he can get them under RTI Act, Though an employee facing disciplinary charges as explained above the accused employee does not have any moral or legal right to file plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related to allegation against him, but to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or taken action against him, if done so it becomes misuse and that cannot be encouraged. The public interest is an overriding factor in these cases also as per the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. If such multiple RTI actions are allowed the officers at higher level will lose moral authority to initiate action against erring employees and whole system system of disciplined administration would crumble. In contra, there is a huge public interest in taking action against the wrongdoing employees. Here in this case, the appellant is not even trying to protect his personal right, or right to employment or right to fair trial. But he is unleashing his private vengeance against colleagues or seniors who are either inquiring or informing or complaining or giving evidence against him. Such information would squarely fall under exempted category as per Section 8(h) (‘information which would impede process of investigation or prosecution of offenders’) of RTI Act, 2005 as this would not only impede the investigation or inquiry against him, but also impede the inquiries against all such erring employees who will be immorally encouraged or tempted to use RTI for this private, illegal and vengeful purpose. The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. The RTI is not for these disgruntled employees facing disciplinary proceedings or selfish persons but for the people in general, only in public interest, and never for the private vengeance at all.
If this kind of misuse is not checked, and officers will be threatened, demoralized and prevented from proceeding against employees facing charges misconduct. None would complain/inform/give evidence or no authority would gather courage to initiate enquiry against erring employees even if law authorizes them, prescribes it as a duty and situation demands. Such a situation will lead to chaos in administration. In order to check the misuse of RTI for running a parallel or counter enquiry against inquiring officers, this application deserves to be rejected and the appellant, admonished. Considering this as another case of misuse of RTI Act by the suspended employees who are trying to take vengeance against the Inquiry officer or officers by instituting a parallel or counter interrogatory questionnaire through multiple questions, the Commission holds that sufficient information has been given to the appellant in both the appeals and warns the appellant not to file RTI applications as a countermeasure to inquiry against him. If any such RTI application is filed in future by him or by anybody on this subject, the DTC shall refer to this order and reject the same. The Commission directs that this order has to be prominently displayed in the website and at any conspicuous place in the office under the caption of ‘misuse’ red in color.’
23. In spite of the Order the appellant continued abusing the RTI Act to take vengeance against his superior officers who have suspended him, these four appeal prove the same. To harass the officers who took action against him, appellant chose the route of RTI demanding information on irrelevant, unnecessary and vexatious issues like minutes of the disciplinary committee meeting, service details of officers, complaints received against the officers, specifically Mr. B.P.Nigam and Ms. Kirti Bhalla, etc. The Commission observes that these RTI applications are repetitions of the earlier ones. There is no public interest involved in his appeals. Commission cannot encourage this kind of indiscipline by the disgruntled suspended employees. The Commission, therefore, prefers to admonish the appellant for abusing the RTI Act. If he has got any genuine complaint against the order of Inquiry Committee, against him, it is open for him to approach the right forum in appeal. Choosing the way of RTI against his officers tantamount to obstructing them from performing their duties, harassing them and choking the office work with frequent and vexatious RTI applications and it is sheer insubordination on the part of the appellant against his senior officers. The Public Authority is expected to maintain discipline in the office. The higher officers have legal duty to secure morale of officers who are questioning the indiscipline of subordinate officers. The Commission, therefore, requires the Public Authority to inform the Commission as to the action taken by them in tackling the insubordination of the employees like the appellant.
24. The Commission also directs them to prepare a comprehensive note regarding the action taken against the employees like the appellant. The Commission further directs the Public Authority to upload such a note along with the previous orders of the Commission and this order, into their official website under the caption “Abuse of RTI Act” within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also warns the appellant not to misuse the RTI Act anymore and if he repeats the same it will be viewed seriously.
25. In view of above direction, all the above four appeals are hereby dismissed.