While Central Information Commissioners have declared the whole of their assets in public domain, the Orissa Commissioners refuse to deny such information even to an RTI applicant. The big question is, why and how long?
Dear friends,
Here is a model set by Central Information Commissioners, which every public servant of the country should emulate. In a turnaround of unique significance, especially in the prevailing milieus of hush-hush about one's property, six of them have declared their movable and immovable assets on the Website of the Commission (visit the link 'Declaration of Assets' in http://cic.gov.in). As the Times of India dated 7th April 2011 reported, Mr. Satyananda Mishra, an Orissa-born IAS officer now serving as Chief Central Information Commissioner speaking on the rationale of their latest action, said, "We have taken a decision during the last week of March to voluntarily declare our assets on the website. We thought when there is nothing to hide, why not to place them in public domain". The kind of asset declaration that the Central Commissioners have done, is best illustrated from how Mr.Shailesh Gandhi did in his case. In his declaration Mr.Gandhi has not only disclosed his house property, but also the amount and cost of such piecemeal movable assets as vehicle, jewelry, bank deposits, bank balances, bonds, mutual fund, shares, and cash at hand. It is really a nothing-to-hide kind of declaration of assets by a public servant and worth a trend setter for the rest of the country.
But in Orissa the story is woefully different. Like any petty scribe who is scared of disclosing his assets lest the ill got wealth amassed by him would come under vigilance scanner, the Orissa Information Commissioners are hell-bent to keep their real assets in absolute secrecy, not only from the public domain but also from their office itself.
Over years we have been struggling to ensure that the Information Commissioners being the transparency watchdogs should, to start with, set an example before the entire officialdom by declaring both immovable and movable assets owned by them. In pursuit of the said mission, I had applied on 31.8.09 to the Public Information Officers of both Orissa Information Commission and Information and Public Relations Department (nodal RTI Dept) seeking information about the property list of State Chief Information Commissioner (then Mr. D.N. Padhi), Prof. Radhamohan (former State Information Commissioner and Mr. Jagadananda State Information Commissioner, which they might have submitted to the Govt as per the mandate of the Service Rules applicable to them. Needless to mention, as per the RTI Act the State Chief Information Commissioner is equivalent in rank to the Election Commissioner of India and the State Information Commissioner to the Chief Secretary of State, and as per both All India and State Service Rules, the concerned Officers are required to submit the property list to the Govt. whom they are presently serving.
Strangely enough, the PIO, Dept. of I and PR rejected my RTI Application without any rhyme or reason, for which I made the 1st Appeal before the Appellate Authority of the said Dept. The latter on hearing my appeal directed the PIO to transfer the application to the PIO, Orissa Information Commission under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act for providing me the required information.
But then the PIO of OIC, supplied me a sheet of information, which revealed a little but concealed the most of the real information sought for. As is well known, as per the existing Service Rules the property list includes both movable assets (Bank Balance, Insurance, vehicle and jewelry etc.) and immovable assets (land, building etc.), and that is exactly what I sought for in my RTI application. But, as against this mandatory provision, the PIO had simply supplied me a list of immovable assets of the above Commissioners, omitting the movable ones which they and their spouses might be owning.
As against such incomplete information, I made a 1st appeal to the 1st Appellate Officer of the Commission with a request to supply me complete information as required under law. On 27.11.09, the said 1st Appellate Officer heard my case. During the hearing, the PIO explained that he could not supply the complete information to me as the list of movable assets has not been submitted by any Commissioner to the Office. The 1st Appellate Authority dismissed my case maintaining that the PIO has provided me the information as available with him from the source of the Commissioners themselves.
Not satisfied with the decision of the 1st Appellate Officer, I made a 2nd appeal to Orissa Information Commission on 12.1.2010, again pleading for supply of complete information besides taking punitive action against the defaulter PIO as required under Section 20(1) of RTI Act. Meanwhile more than a year and three months has elapsed, since the above appeal was made, but it remains yet pending at Commission's level. I am waiting with a baited breath to attend the day of hearing before the Commission where I can establish the legitimacy of my right under RTI Act to receive the complete property list of the Information Commissioners.
But the question remains, if they are legally correct in withholding their property list from the public view, why are they scared of calling me to a hearing over my second appeal? Is it that in their feverish anxiety to hide the truth about their accumulation, they have given a calculated miss to their overriding obligation under RTI Act i.e. to hear and decide a citizen's appeal, precisely for which they are being fed fabulously from the public exchequer?
Be that as it may, shall they learn a lesson from the recent initiative of Central Information Commissioners and declare their own assets, both movable and immovable in public domain? Before sermonizing other public servants on the wisdom of declaring their assets by the former Chief Mr.Padhi, should they not apply it first to themselves?
Pradip Pradhan
RTI Activist
Orissa
Date- 9.4.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.