-

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 िशकायत संূा / Complaint No. CIC/DOP&T/C/2023/627806+

CIC/DOP&T/A/2023/111703 Akshay Kumar Malhotra …िशकायतकता१/Complainant VERSUS बनाम CPIO:

Office of the Lokpal, …ঋितवादीगण /Respondents New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 05.01.2023	FA : 04.02.2023	Complaint : 07.06.2023 & SA :13.03.2023
CPIO : 01.02.2023	FAO : 03.03.2023	Hearing : 03.12.2024

Note: The instant set of complaint and second appeal have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the identical subject-matter.

Date of Decision: 12.12.2024 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant/Complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) filed an RTI application dated 05.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Please inform me on point no. 6 of the Order, on the one side says that, ‘..directed the CVC to cause an inquiry into the matter and submit a report..’

-

but on the other side says that, ‘..CVC, vide covering letter dated 15.09.2022, has submitted the report received from the DDA..’ So information requested is that, H’ble Lokpal had directed CVC to cause an Inquiry (by themselves i.e. by CVC), whereas, following sentence of Order says that CVC just submitted the report received from DDA, which means Inquiry was conducted by people of DDA and not by CVC. So, please inform or rather confirm that who actually conducted the Inquiry i.e. by people within DDA or people within CVC. In my Complaint I had mentioned specifically that various Deptt within DDA, including Vigilance Deptt of DDA are biased in favor of people in DDA against whom I had made the complaint and I specifically requested that Inquiry be conducted by someone who is not related to DDA. But still if the Inquiry is been done by people within DDA, then it is nothing but a formality completed by DDA, and moreover, when Hon’ble Lokpal directed CVC to cause an Inquiry (by themselves), then how come CVC can outsource to someone else and that too to the accused themselves i.e. to DDA.

So, this Inquiry report, if prepared by people within DDA is flawed one and not in accordance to the directions passed by Lokpal, then how come this flawed Inquiry report can be adopted in passing an Order.

(ii) Please provide me with the certified copies of the Inquiry report vide letter dated

15.09.2022 of CVC, as referred to in the Order, even though the said Inquiry report should have been provided to me or rather should have been served to me mandatorily under Principle of Natural Justice, but which didn’t happen. It’s so simple that whatever reply is been submitted by accused is accepted and adopted and a flawed Order is passed.

(iii) Please inform me and provide me with the copies of the conclusion report prepared and submitted by CVC to Lokpal.

-

(iv) Please inform me about another confusion within Order itself, as point no. 6 of the Order talks about ‘Inquiry Report’ which implies ‘FINAL Inquiry Report’, whereas, point number 8 talks about ‘preliminary Inquiry Report dated 15.9.2022’ So, please inform me that whether the Inquiry Report dated

15.09.2022 is a ‘Preliminary Inquiry Report’ or a ‘Final Inquiry Report’.

(v) Please provide me with the certified copies of the Final Inquiry report, if the Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2022 is a preliminary Inquiry Report.” etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

As far as information sought vide point no. 2, 3 and 5 is concerned, an additional fee of Rs. 2400/- for providing hard copy is requested, as the information sought is not available in electronic format(For 1200 pages). The point-wise information for the remaining points is as below Point 1 - Under RTI Act 2005, only information can be sought. Interpretation/ explanation of information cannot be sought under the Act. Further, the Order of the Honorabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document