| Dear Shri MK Gupta, Its a corrupt , corrupt and corrupt world. In this world the corrupt survive, prosper and are adored. No one will sing for a man in trouble, no one will side with a man in trouble, no one higher or junior will like to be seen as the fried of the one in trouble. By writing about your case you may get some smug satisfaction that its on the net and others have read about it. No one will ever take up your case he may be even Hazare, Kejriwal or Kiran. Why I write to you is that even I was a Whistle blower of financial irregularity in an Organisation whose Director I was. I had assisted the CAG of India in unearthing massive financial irregularity. I whistle blew the financial irregularities to the CVC of India. Bold step many may say. But what I got sudden suspension which continued for three and a half years. It ended only because the High Court quashed it as also the charge sheet on grounds of mala fides. The story is long and boring. The end result I was compulsorily retired as a major penalty cause of an ex parte Enquiry conducted by a retired judge of High Court who was paid almost Rs Five Lakhs. The charge sheet contained the same verbatim charges which had been quashed by the Court on grounds of mala fides , issued and signed by a Deputy Director of mine who had no statutory powers....... why bore you sir. I approached the High Court before even the Order of my compulsory retirement was passed but till now there has been no notice issued. The Minister in charge is swayed by the vote banks, The CVC is only advisory. The CAG can not do anything. All those whom you helped are scared to talk to you. Moral : Do not fight corruption let dogs have the party and the feast. Every dog has his day ( but you aren't a dog) PS> Thanks . Incidentally I used your case CIC Ruling that the information can not be denied on the pretext of matter being sub judice but there they did not reply. I guess you can not fight dogs unless you are dog yourself and have a horde of dogs to side you in the hope of the feast. --- On Wed, 25/5/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
Re: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
I agree with Shri Jam. Month of June will be humming with activities till the fast of Baba Ram Devl ji takes a logical conclusion. Closing the eyes with the happeining around us is not wise and we cannot afford that too. "Waqt ke badlav se jo khabardaar nahin hai, wo kuch aur hi hogo lekin samazdaar nahin." hai. --- On Sun, 29/5/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 7:56 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
From 1 June 2011, this group will once again be esentially unmoderated. The only tool moderaors will use is to a) "gag" members from posting or b) ""kick out" members from the group.
My huimble request to everyone is to confine ourselves to discussing RTI on this group and not post unneccessarily.
Occassionally our group members may decide to post something of interest to a large section of the group which is not directly concerned with RTI. This is OK as long as it is clearly marked "OT" or "OFF-TOPIC" in the message subject or there is some other clear indication that the author is requesting the indulgence of group members / moderators..
For ready reference the group's regulations can be read here
http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/353ac86b3e03a0ae
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Fw: Re: Posting the mails on your blogspot with address
--- On Sat, 28/5/11, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
It is a matter between group members and need not to be
referred to Police as Mr Tripathi proposed. Our members are competent
enough to give their opinion, so there is no need for going for legal
action.
I agree with Mr MK Gupta.
I also agree with Mr Arora when he says :'' I believe she is
posting these messages in good faith and good intentions, so if we
request her she might agree to posting the messages without email
addresses.
If some one individual is hurt due to the action of any
member, then we can sort out the same and pardon the person who has
done wrong with any other member of the group.
I hope Mr Devendra Tripathi will consider my suggestion
Regards
Dr JN Sharma
On 5/27/11, Devendra Tripathi <tripathidk@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am sure, Sarbajit did not mean it (taking help of a Chinese hacker). But I
> also feel very strongly on this issue. It is worst than copy paste
> journalism.
> If Ms Urvashi does not remove e-mails, some steps (filing a police complain
> for
> example) may be the way to go.
> Regards,
> Devendra Tripathi
> Cell: +1(408)416-1848
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 5:44:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
>
>
> No to hacking by any Chienese of Indian hacker. Today, Ms. Urvashri Sharma,
> tomorrowm, it may be any other member.
> However, I fail to understand that when the email addresses of the members
> are
> being published on this blog, what will we achiev by blackining them from
> her
> blog?
> If however, it is decided, she should be requested for this by sending her
> an
> email by the moderator of this group. I hope she will agree to this.
>
>
>
> is group sent an email to her requesting her not to publish the email
> addresses
> on the huappeal to Ms. Urvarshi Sharma
>
> --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Amit Arora <amitscorpio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>From: Amit Arora <amitscorpio@gmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
>>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 10:38 PM
>>
>>
>>Dear Sarbajit,
>>
>>There are other ways then a brute force hacking method. How about
>> requesting Ms.
>>Urvashi to respect the privacy of the members and to just remove the email
>>addresses from the posts. I believe she is posting these messages in good
>> faith
>>and good intentions, so if we request her she might agree to posting the
>>messages without email addresses.
>>
>>Thanx & Regards
>>
>>Amit Arora
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:51 PM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The blog in question is probably one of Urvashi Sharma's blogs which
>>>is simply reposting messages from this group. We can do nothing
>>>(legally) to stop it (or to prevent any member from doing the same) ,
>>>so I'll just request my Chinese hacker friends to apply some old
>>>fashioned brute force cracking methods to shut down the blog.
>>>
>>>Sarbajit
>>>
>>>On May 26, 9:15 pm, "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnol...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will agree with Mr. Amit , Moderator shall examine the above
>>>> suggestion
>>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Amit Arora <amitscor...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Dear Moderator,
>>>>
>>>> > I have observed that the emails from this group are being posted on a
>>>> > blog
>>>> >http://humjanege.blogspot.com/. This blogpost is posting the emails
>>>> > along
>>>> > with the email addresses of the senders. This way of publishing the
>>>> > email
>>>> > addresses of the group members is not good as they can be picked up by
>>>> > net
>>>> > crawlers and can be misused. If you are the owner of the blog or if
>>>> > you
>>know
>>>> > the owner of the above state blog, can you please change the way these
>>>> > emails are posted on the blog?
>>>>
>>>> > Thanx & Regards
>>>>
>>>> > Amit Arora
>>
Friday, May 27, 2011
[HumJanenge] Poor girl became victim of extortion from school management. Two years fees extorted and provided forged passed certificate
Very good and social move by Rajneesh ji. All the best to him Paramjit Singh (World Record Holder) http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholders.asp?page=12 --- On Fri, 27/5/11, rajneesh madhok <rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
| that is fine Sir, --- On Sat, 5/28/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
[HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
As you know in the month of April 2011 this group was severely stressed by message overload due to Anna Hazare and the Lok Pal Bill agitation. As a result group moderators had to severely restrict messages to the group and monitor / control messages prior to posting.
In May 2011 moderators eased off on active moderation seeing that members were cooperating in sticking to group onjectives and group rules. I am sorry to say that there are still a few members who insist in posting / cross-posting emails to this group, some of which are completely off topic and irritatints to our group membership..
From 1 June 2011, this group will once again be esentially unmoderated. The only tool moderaors will use is to a) "gag" members from posting or b) ""kick out" members from the group.
My huimble request to everyone is to confine ourselves to discussing RTI on this group and not post unneccessarily.
Occassionally our group members may decide to post something of interest to a large section of the group which is not directly concerned with RTI. This is OK as long as it is clearly marked "OT" or "OFF-TOPIC" in the message subject or there is some other clear indication that the author is requesting the indulgence of group members / moderators..
For ready reference the group's regulations can be read here
http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/353ac86b3e03a0ae
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Poor girl became victim of extortion from school management. Two years fees extorted and provided forged passed certificate
To The Senior Superintendent of Police, Office of Senior Superintendent of Police,
Court Complex,
Kapurthala -144601
Punjab - INDIA
Office : +91-1822-233736, 220513
Mobile: +91-98784-29001
Email: sspkapurthala@yahoo.com
Website: www.kapurthalapolice.net
Poor girl became victim of extortion from School management. One School extorted fees for two years and one school for half year. The certificate provided by one school about passing of +1 exam is useless. She paid for two and half years fees, Bus fees and addition to it the charges for extra coaching. The school extorted money and provided forged document of passing of 10+1 class which is useless. Now she is running from pillar to post to get justice but in vain.
The representations to the authorities have also been made
As
Complaint U/S 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 for For defrauding and forgery. But no action has been taken so far.
Kindly suggest the way out.
Regards,
Rajneesh Madhok
Phagwara: Date May 23, 2011
1. The Chairman &Chief Vigilance Officer Mr. Vineet Joshi, IAS Tel. 91-11-22023737, 22467263
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2 COMMUNITY CENTRE
PREET VIHAR, DELHI- 110092
2. Affiliation, Administration and Scholarship Matters
Dr (Mrs) Veera Gupta
Secretary Tel. 91-11-22549627, 22549628
Email: secy-cbse@nic. in
3. Examination Matters M C Sharma,
Controller of Examination
Tel. 91-11-22515828
Email: mcsharma.cbse@ nic.in
4. CBSE - REGIONAL OFFICE, DELHI
PS 1-2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, I.P. EXTN., PATPARGANJ, DELHI - 110 090, Tel: 91-11-22239177- 80, Fax: 22248883
Email: chmn-cbse@nic. in
5. Regional Office
Central Board of Secondary Education, Sector- 5 , Panchkula - 134109 (Haryana)
Haryana,U.T. of Chandigarh, Punjab, J&K, Himachal Pradesh.
Tel: 91-172-2585163/ 2585193
Fax:91-172-2585193
ropanchkula. cbse@nic. in
6. The Director General School Education,
Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan,
SCO-162-164, Sec-34 A,
Chandigarh.
7. Victoria International Public School,----- ----Respondent
VPO Chachoki ,G.T. Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-261744, 223821, 223824, Fax: 01824-223821, E-mail: vipsphagwara@ gmail.com;
8. Kamla Nehru College for women,
Plahi Road,
Phagwara
Subject::
· · COMPLAINT UNDER SCHEDULE 15 OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT, 2009. UNDER THE ACT NO CHILD SHOULD DISCONTINUE EDUCATION BECAUSE OF DELAY IN ISSUING THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE.
· · STUDENT WANT TO TAKE ADMISSION IN PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD SCHOOL BUT SCHOOL NOT ISSUING TRANSFER CERTIFICATE.
· · RIGHT TO EDUCATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BUT SCHOOL IS DEPRIVING STUDENT FROM HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
1. 1. Complaint against Victoria International Public School regarding Non-issuance of School Leaving Certificate / Transfer Certificate & extorted fees for two years on illegal parameters.
2. 2. Due to delay in issuance of Transfer Certificate Student will lose this academic year also.
3. 3. New School from which the student wants to apply not admitting without Transfer Certificate from School in which she studied earlier.
4. 4. As per State Department of Public instructions guidelines the schools should not delay the TC-issuing process. Even if the student requests for a TC in the middle of the academic year. The school should consider it as an emergency and issue the TC immediately.
5. 5. If the negligence in issuing the TC, the Principals of both schools, that is from where the TC is needed and the school that the child wants to join will be held responsible.
R/Sirs,
It is humbly submitted that the complainant is a resident of V &P.O. Dhesian Kahna Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. Hence is competent to invoke the right of life and liberty.
I am fighting struggling to get justice and there is high scale violation of the human rights from Victoria Internation Public School, G.T. Road, Phagwara. The under mentioned details are the proof of continuous harassment. The facts of the case are as following.
1. 1. That the complainant has been the student of said Victoria International Public School, Phagwara and appeared in March 2009 vide Roll No. 2188271 in 10th class through that school in CBSE, Secondary School Examination 2009 and got compartments in Mathematics and English Comm Papers.-- Annexure Page 1
2. 2. That the student was admitted to the next class by Victoria international public School in +1 from April 2009 and collected fees and other charges from the student.
3. 3. That the student appeared in Aug 2009 in one subject of Maths whereas the school collected examination fees from the student for appearing in two subjects. As English language subject was not compulsory to clear so the school collected Examination fees for two subjects but sent fees for one subject to CBSE.
4. 4. That in Aug 2009 exam conducted by CBSE the student could not qualify in the said paper of Maths.
5. 5. That in March 2010 the student cleared the exam of Secondary Education vide Roll No. 2175660 and the certificate of Pass issued on 28-05-2010 but the said certificate has not been delivered to the student. –Annexure Page 2.
6. 6. That the student keep on visiting the office of school to get the result card, one day the school directed her to visit office of CBSE, Panchkula to get the result card. On numerous visits she was told that her certificate will be sent to her home address.
7. 7. The Certificate issued by CBSE certifying that the student has qualified the Secondary School Examination of the board held in March, 2010. –Annexure –Page-3-
8. 8. That the Regional office Central Board of Secondary Education, Sector 5, Panchkula (Haryana) sent the Result card which was delivered to student on 4th Jan 2011. Annexure Page 4 with postal stamps of delivery of document.
9. 9. That on the basis of compartment candidate the student got admission in Kamla Nehru College for Women, Phagwara in +1 class in April 2010.
10. 10. That as the result of compartments in Maths and English was declared in May 2009 which the student could not qualify. The student was directed to visit to Victoria International Public School by Kamla Nehru College for women to file examination form to Reappear in 10th Class.
11. 11. That on visit to Victoria International Public School the school management forced the student to get admission in their school if she wants to get her forms filled up for appearance in exam. The admission in the School was given in Mid session and the student has to pay fees for complete session to Victoria International Public School, Phagwara and half session to Kamla Nehru Public School, Phagwara.
12. 12. That in March 2010 the student passed +1 exam conducted by Victoria International Public School, Phagwara and the result declared vide Admission No. 1825 declared by School. Annexure Page –5 to 7.
13. 13. That on passing the said exam the student got admitted in +2 class in April 2010. As the result card of 10th Class has not been in the possession of the candidate the candidate had been harassed to bring the said card from CBSE to appear in +2 exam.
14. 14. That on visit to CBSE office at Panchkula the student was told that she can not appear in +2 exam in this session as she has passed 10th Class exam in 2010 as per record and there should be a gap of one year in appearance in +2 exam. But the Principal, Victoria Interantional Public School who has collected fees for 10+2 Admission fees, Tuition fees and examination fees of Rs 600=00 do not admit the instruction of CBSE says that the student can appear in 10+2 class of CBSE.
RELIEF SOUGHT:
1. 1. Victoria International Public School, Phagwara refused to give School-Leaving Certificate/ Transfer Certificate AND NOT REFUNDING This is UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES. Kindly direct the school to issue School-Leaving Certificate / Transfer Certificate as the said school has withheld the Transfer Certificate on flimsy grounds and refund the fees collected from the student for the current session and past session.
2. 2. No dues certificate and Transfer Certificate kindly be issued immediately.
3. 3. Harassment casued to student and parents kindly be duly compensated with Rs 1,00,000.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Raman Deep Kaur,
VPO Dhesian Kahna,
Tehsil Phillaur,
Distt. Jalandhar Punjab,
Pin: 141311
Ph: 01826-270096, 98147-004493
Through: Rajneesh Madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415 (M)
Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rmadhok_pgm@ bsnl.in; rajneesh_madhok@ yahoo.com
DETAILS OF FEES PAID IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER Annexed as per available record
SNo Date Institution Receipt No. Amount Class Affiliation
1 12/06/2009 Kamla Nehru College for women 4130 4320=00 +1 Arts Punjab School Educ Board,
2 07/09/2009 Victoria Int Pub School 3009 2000=00 10+1 Arts CBSE
3 09/09/2009 ---do--- 3115 10425 10+1 Commerce CBSE
4 09/09/2009 ---do----- 3116 1500=00 10+1 Comm CBSE
5 11/11/2009 ---do--- 4330 2950=00 10+1 Comm CBSE
6 11/11/2009 ---do--- 4331 2000=00 10+1 Comm CBSE
7 03/05/2010 -do- 948 4200-00 10+2 Commerce
· The Principal and Chairman kicked out the student and her mother and not provided Transfer Certificate on their pleadings that the girl child can appear in +2 exam in Punjab School Education Board.
· School management fraudulently keep on receiving fees and other charges from the student and till date not provided the information that the forged document of passing of +1 class has been provided to student.
· Is there anybody who can hear the voice of poor child who has been wailing for help at this hour of need.
· The administration is shielding the school and the poor child is not getting justice.
· Kindly examine the averments made for the child and the chracter of the Educational institution.
· The question in this case is that whether in the light of cumulative facts as established by the student and furnished the documentary evidences, the official machinery works with the financial background of the child, and administration has lost eyes and ears or they are dominating the society by the controlling powers beyond expectations.
· Whether every authority will dismiss the plea and will guide to take liberty to seek remedies elsewhere. The poor child don't afford to get remedies in courts and be harassed because she and her mother are living with her old grand father. Her father has gone abroad in gulf country and earning livelihood to meet two ends meal.
Kindly take in to consideration the above mentioned points.
Regards,
Rajneesh Madhok,
Well wisher of a poor child and pray to God to provide justice to her.
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
Devendra Tripathi
Cell: +1(408)416-1848
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 5:44:29 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
| No to hacking by any Chienese of Indian hacker. Today, Ms. Urvashri Sharma, tomorrowm, it may be any other member. However, I fail to understand that when the email addresses of the members are being published on this blog, what will we achiev by blackining them from her blog? If however, it is decided, she should be requested for this by sending her an email by the moderator of this group. I hope she will agree to this. is group sent an email to her requesting her not to publish the email addresses on the huappeal to Ms. Urvarshi Sharma --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Amit Arora <amitscorpio@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
No to hacking by any Chienese of Indian hacker. Today, Ms. Urvashri Sharma, tomorrowm, it may be any other member. However, I fail to understand that when the email addresses of the members are being published on this blog, what will we achiev by blackining them from her blog? If however, it is decided, she should be requested for this by sending her an email by the moderator of this group. I hope she will agree to this. is group sent an email to her requesting her not to publish the email addresses on the huappeal to Ms. Urvarshi Sharma --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Amit Arora <amitscorpio@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
I appeal Ms Urvarshi Sharma, if that is her blog, to keep in mind the views of the members and at least do not give the email addresses of the members. I disagree of taking any kind of help from any Indian or Chinese hacker. This is today in Ms. Sharma case, tomorrow, any other member may be the victim of this. --- On Thu, 26/5/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
Dear Sarbajit,
There are other ways then a brute force hacking method. How about requesting Ms. Urvashi to respect the privacy of the members and to just remove the email addresses from the posts. I believe she is posting these messages in good faith and good intentions, so if we request her she might agree to posting the messages without email addresses.
Thanx & Regards
Amit AroraOn Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:51 PM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
The blog in question is probably one of Urvashi Sharma's blogs which
is simply reposting messages from this group. We can do nothing
(legally) to stop it (or to prevent any member from doing the same) ,
so I'll just request my Chinese hacker friends to apply some old
fashioned brute force cracking methods to shut down the blog.
Sarbajit
On May 26, 9:15 pm, "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I will agree with Mr. Amit , Moderator shall examine the above suggestion
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Amit Arora <amitscor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Moderator,
>
> > I have observed that the emails from this group are being posted on a blog
> >http://humjanege.blogspot.com/. This blogpost is posting the emails along
> > with the email addresses of the senders. This way of publishing the email
> > addresses of the group members is not good as they can be picked up by net
> > crawlers and can be misused. If you are the owner of the blog or if you know
> > the owner of the above state blog, can you please change the way these
> > emails are posted on the blog?
>
> > Thanx & Regards
>
> > Amit Arora
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
There are other ways then a brute force hacking method. How about requesting Ms. Urvashi to respect the privacy of the members and to just remove the email addresses from the posts. I believe she is posting these messages in good faith and good intentions, so if we request her she might agree to posting the messages without email addresses.
Thanx & Regards
Amit Arora
The blog in question is probably one of Urvashi Sharma's blogs which
is simply reposting messages from this group. We can do nothing
(legally) to stop it (or to prevent any member from doing the same) ,
so I'll just request my Chinese hacker friends to apply some old
fashioned brute force cracking methods to shut down the blog.
Sarbajit
On May 26, 9:15 pm, "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I will agree with Mr. Amit , Moderator shall examine the above suggestion
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Amit Arora <amitscor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Moderator,
>
> > I have observed that the emails from this group are being posted on a blog
> >http://humjanege.blogspot.com/. This blogpost is posting the emails along
> > with the email addresses of the senders. This way of publishing the email
> > addresses of the group members is not good as they can be picked up by net
> > crawlers and can be misused. If you are the owner of the blog or if you know
> > the owner of the above state blog, can you please change the way these
> > emails are posted on the blog?
>
> > Thanx & Regards
>
> > Amit Arora
[HumJanenge] Re: Important request to moderator.
is simply reposting messages from this group. We can do nothing
(legally) to stop it (or to prevent any member from doing the same) ,
so I'll just request my Chinese hacker friends to apply some old
fashioned brute force cracking methods to shut down the blog.
Sarbajit
On May 26, 9:15 pm, "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I will agree with Mr. Amit , Moderator shall examine the above suggestion
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Amit Arora <amitscor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Moderator,
>
> > I have observed that the emails from this group are being posted on a blog
> >http://humjanege.blogspot.com/. This blogpost is posting the emails along
> > with the email addresses of the senders. This way of publishing the email
> > addresses of the group members is not good as they can be picked up by net
> > crawlers and can be misused. If you are the owner of the blog or if you know
> > the owner of the above state blog, can you please change the way these
> > emails are posted on the blog?
>
> > Thanx & Regards
>
> > Amit Arora
Re: [HumJanenge] Important request to moderator.
Dear Moderator,
I have observed that the emails from this group are being posted on a blog http://humjanege.blogspot.com/ . This blogpost is posting the emails along with the email addresses of the senders. This way of publishing the email addresses of the group members is not good as they can be picked up by net crawlers and can be misused. If you are the owner of the blog or if you know the owner of the above state blog, can you please change the way these emails are posted on the blog?
Thanx & Regards
Amit Arora
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] Larger bench
Sidharth
(Changed the subject line of the email)Haven't come across any order from the CIC, where the matter was referred to a a larger bench since the appellant/respondent requested.It is always the IC who sends the matter for consideration of a larger bench.In quite a few cases, it is simply because the IC does not want to take the decision himself, alone.Even is those matters, where the CIC has already decided that matters will be heard by a division bench - for example matters related to High Courts - ex CIC WH ruled that that was only applicable on a case to case basis and went on to hear my matter related to the Delhi HC as a single IC/CIC - thus violating his own commissions orders. Please see page 6 of the following order:RTIwanted
From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
Abhrol jee,
Thanks for pointing out the legal position on "referring cases to
higher/full bench".
Btw would you care to cite 3/4 such cases which you might have come across.
Sidharth
On 18 May 2011 10:55, Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> IC Shailesh Gandhi is not empowered to refer the issue to full Bench.
> Matter can be taken up by the opponent i.e Respondant or Applicant.
> This is my personal assessmnet
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Rakshpal Abrol
> Consumer Activist
> 9820203154
> rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 18 May, 2011 7:47:35 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
>
> I wonder why IC Gandhi did not referred this case to a "FULL BENCH"
> since it involved substantial question of law ! IMHO
>
>
[HumJanenge] decision of communication ministry for withdrawing UPC service -
The questions you put in on the RTI are really toothless. They cannot take out even a least bit of info from out iron lipped friends in bureaucracy.
You should instead ask for
1. Copy of minute of meetings in which the said service was discontinued
2. Name of all officials who took part in the said meeting and the suggestions made by them.
3. Name of those who proposed to discontinue the UPC service and copy of the documents siting reasons of such withdrawal.
4. Whether the postal department comes under consumer protection purview and a user of his services is duly entitled to get a receipt or not.
The question of receipt of using postal services is critical and it will guide you towards positive outcome.
Please oppose the decision of communication ministry for withdrawing old postal service -UPC
Dear friends,
I hope you will be aware of this decision that the Communication and Information ministry, Govt. of India, has withdrawn service of UPC (Under Posting Certificate) that was used mostly by poor sections of society. Now a days, the activists in the sphere of RTI were also using this old postal service extensively. Under this service, the consumers got a proof from the post office against the posting of their letters or documents at the same post office after paying just Rs 3.
The consumer just pasted a postal stamp of worth Rs 3 (Three) on his own written address slip or paper and the post office where the consumer posted their documents cancelled the stamp pasted on the address slip. Now this slip worked as a proof against the posting of the documents on the certain address. The address slip was valid up to three addresses. In other words, the big advantage for the consumers was that they could have received a proof certificate simultaneously for three documents just paying the same amount of 3 Rs.
After withdrawal of this service I filed an RTI before Communication department in New Delhi asking for simple information that why the concerned department has discontinued the service of UPC and what were the disadvantages the department facing for continuing this service?
But the department did not furnish this information properly. The department answered that the postal department used not to confirm the delivering of particular documents at the particular address after giving the receiving certificate. It is here to clear that the purpose of UPC was to get a proof by the consumer against the posting of the documents at the certain address.
In fact it was not for delivery proof. After all, the job of delivery is with the postal department.
This step has been taken by the department in an arbitrary manner. As we know that his service was being used by a million of people in a month countrywide.
But it is a matter of surprising that no political party or organization has came forward to oppose this move. It seems that postal department do not understand the importance of this service in this country with this fact that this service is mentioned in the 1935 act.
It seems that this step was taken to promote the courier services of private company. Presently, any consumer has to pay more than twenty two rupees for registered post. An RTI activist had to pay maximum Rs 8 for using under posting certificate service. We feel that this move is an effort to curtail the rights being exercised by RTI activists .
With regard
Anil chamadia
--
On 29 April 2011 22:19, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
To
Mr.Anna Hazare,
Ralegan Siddhi,
Tal -Parner,
Ahmednagar,
Maharashtra, India.
Ph- 91-02488-240401, 91 - 02488 - 240581
info@annahazare.org, annahazare@hotmail.com
Sub: Request for drastic recast of Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2 in line with its original mandate- Resolution of the Second Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill held at Cuttack, Orissa by Progressive Lawyers Association on 26th April 2011
Esteemed Annaji,
Greetings from Progressive Lawyers Association!
Hopefully, you might have gone through and appreciated the Report of our first Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.1 held on 18th April 2011 at Cuttack, Orissa. In that report we have pointed out various omissions and commissions in the Jan Lokpal Bill proposed by India Against Corruption Team and called for its drastic overhaul in keeping with its original mandate.
Meanwhile the 2nd Seminar on the above subject was held on 26th April 2011 attended mostly by Advocates of Orissa High Court along with a section of social activists. In this Seminar we have located some more omissions and commissions, which are both serious and silly in nature in the Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2.
While forwarding herewith the complete Report of the 2nd Seminar, we earnestly request you to kindly do the needful to address to the existing omissions and commissions in the draft Jan Lokpal Bill so as to provide for an effective and foolproof anti-corruption law covering both Centre and States.
A line in reply shall be highly appreciated.
With regards,
Kshirod Kumar Rout, Dt 29.4.2011
President, Progressive Lawyers Association
D/917, Sector-6, CDA, Cuttack-14, Orissa
Email: kshirodroutadv@gmail.com
Mobile: 09937169865
Copy to: indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, info@indiaagainstcorruption.org,
prashantbhush@gmail.com, Justice S.Hegde kla.kar@nic.in, agnivesh70@gmail.com , kiranbedioffice@gmail.com, Arvind Kejriwal parivartan@parivartan.com
Orissa lawyers for a drastic overhaul of Jan Lokpal Bill
Second Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill
Orgd. by Progressive Lawyers Association
at Basundhara, Cuttack, Orissa on 26th April 2011
After the first Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill was held on 18th April by Progressive Lawyers Association, the 2nd one was held on 26th April at the same venue i.e. Basundhara, Bidanasi, Cuttack in the evening around 6.30 to 8.30 pm. The list of participants is appended hereto. It was presided over by Mr.Khirod Rout, Advocate Orissa High Court, President of the Association.
The President while declaring the Seminar open apprised the house that the proceedings of the first Seminar were mailed to Mr.Anna Hazare with a forwarding note on the need for amending the Draft Bill (version 2.1) and its copy circulated to Justice S.Hegde, India Against Corruption Team and also to such NAC members as Mrs.Sonia Gandhi Chairperson National Advisory Council and Mrs.Aruna Roy, Mr.Harsh Mander, and Dr.N.C.Saxena members of NAC among others. While some participants of the last Seminar were given the proceedings through mail others received it in hard copy.
Further the President informed that meanwhile version 2.2 has replaced the version 2.1 of Jan Lokpal Bill and requested the participants each to speak precisely and in reference to the provisions made in the latest version of Jan Lokpal Bill.
The first Speaker was Mr.Bibhu Prasad Nayak, Advocate Orissa High Court who strongly supported the ongoing move for an effective anti-corruption law in the shape of Jan Lokpal Act to act as a deterrent against the rampant corruption in every sphere of public life.
The next speaker Mr.Dipak Kumar Das, Advocate Orissa High Court pointed out some specific omissions and commissions in version 2.2 of Jan Lokpal Bill. In respect of Section 7 (Removal of Chairperson or members), he showed the following anomalies-
- The Section 6 (2)(b) says, "Any person, who was ever chargesheeted for any offence under IPC or PC Act or any other Act or was ever penalized under CCS Conduct Rules" shall not be eligible for appointment as Chairperson or Member of Lokpal. As is well known, there are many minor, petty, compoundable offenses covered under IPC and some other Acts, should can't be equated with seriousness of charges made under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. This provision should therefore restricted its reference only to PoC Act or conversely mentioned the specific provisions of IPC and other relevant Acts, the charge-sheeting under which shall render a person ineligible for appointment for the above posts.
- The Sub-section (5) of Section 6 (Appointment of the Chairman and Members) which provides for the composition of Selection Committee should have mentioned the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Charirman of Rajya Sabha as its members among others. Further, the provision for including 'two youngest Judges of Supreme Court' and 'two youngest Chief Justices of High Court' in the Selecion Committee needs clarification, especially for its reference to the words 'two youngest'.
- The Section 6(8) which provides for selection of members of Search Committee in its Clause (a)(a) says, "Any person who has had any substantive allegation of corruption against him" shall not be eligible for membership of the said Committee. The expression 'substantive allegation of corruption' needs to be defined. Further, the Section 6(8) in its Clause (a)(b) says, "Any person who has either joined any political party after retirement or has had strong affiliations to any political party" shall not be eligible for membership of the said Committee. Here the expression "strong affiliations to any political party", in absence of a definition is likely to give rise to multiple interpretations and unwarranted ambiguities.
- The Section 6(8) which provides for selection of members of Search Committee in its Clause (b) says, "The five members selected above shall nominate five members from civil society". The word 'civil society' being a too broad expression should be defined in the Bill, and the criteria to be followed for nomination of civil society members should also be specified.
- The Section 6(9)(c ) says, "The Search Committee shall invite recommendations from such class of people as it deems fit. The recommendations should, inter alia, contain the following details". One of such details as mentioned there-under is "his work against corruption in the past with documentary evidence". The expression 'documentary evidence' needs to be defined.
- While Section 7 (3)(b)(iv) says that the Supreme Court shall directly, "if the grounds are proved, recommend to the President for removal of the said member or Chairperson", the Section 7(3)(h) says a different thing- "On receipt of a recommendation from the Supreme Court under clause (b)(iv) supra, the Prime Minister shall immediately recommend the removal of the member(s) or Chairperson of Lokpal to the President, who shall order the removal of the said member(s) or Chairperson within a month of receipt of the same".
- There is omission of Clause (c) and Clause (d) in Section 7(3). After Clause (b), there is abrupt mention of clause (e).
- Section 19A (Punishments for offences) mentions that for offenses committed under such instruments of law as "Chapter-III of Prevention of Corruption Act, the proviso to Section 2(4) of this Act and Section 28A of this Act shall not be less than one year of rigorous imprisonment and may extend upto life imprisonment". Then it is said, "Provided that the punishment shall be more severe if the accused is higher in rank". This proviso needs to be clarified with reference to words such as 'more severe' and 'higher in rank'. Further, the proviso to Section 2(4) says, "Provided that if any person obtains any benefit from the government by violating any laws or rules, that person along with the public servants who directly or indirectly helped that person obtain those benefits, shall be deemed to have indulged in corruption". This provision aiming at punishing the bribe-giver seems to be unwarranted, because a lot of people who don't want to pay any bribe to get their work done are often compelled to do so because the public servants don't do the works of the public without being bribed.
At this point President Mr.Kshirod Rout raised another issue in regard to the proviso under Section 2(4). He observed that if both bribe taking public servant and bribe giving common person are both punished as per Section 2(4), the common man who under the force of circumstances feels compelled to pay bribe, would never come forward to complain about the occurrence of bribery in the concerned public office, lest he would undergo the same punishment as would be meted out to the bribe taking public servant. In the end, no case of corruption would ever be reported to Lokpal.
Advocate Mr. Das also raised the question whether necessary 'protection' has been provided to Lokpal under the Bill. To this query, Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera, Advocate clarified that Section-27 (Protection) ha been provided for the purpose in Jan Lokpal Bill.
The next speaker Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera, Advocate at the outset shared with the participants a heartening development that has taken place meanwhile since the first Seminar on Jan Lokpal Bill was held here itself on 18th April last. After deliberating on 2.1 version of JL Bill, the last Seminar had then arrived at a consensus that the civil society Bill instead of limiting its purview to Centre only, should have covered both Centre and States in keeping with the promise of the founding fathers of the Jan Lokpal Bill as an alternative to the Government proposed Bill that had a Centre-centric purview. Fortunately enough, the current 2.2 version of Jan Lokpal Bill carries a forwarding note that reads, "The following Bill has been drafted only for setting up an institution of Lokpal at the centre. We propose that in this same Bill, provisions on the same model may be made for setting up similar institution of Lokayukta in each state". While our purpose has been partially fulfilled, it would have been better if the preamble of the Bill would have been amended to read as follows, "An act to create effective anti-corruption and grievance redressal systems at Centre and in States so that effective deterrent is created against corruption and to provide effective protection to whistleblowers" and the relevant provisions in the text of the Bill recast accordingly.
Then Mr.Behera made a detailed presentation on his findings on the wide ranging exemptions allowed to different categories of public servants from the investigative and punitive purview of the Jan Lokpal Bill. Before proceeding further he cautioned the participants not to be subjectively judgmental in assessing the quality of this Bill but to assess its provisions objectively by the mandate which the founding fathers had themselves projected to be the rationale of the alternative Bill. Quoting from the briefs circulated by the www.indiaagainstcorruption.org along with the Jan Lokpal Bill, Mr.Behera mentioned 3 such mandates, namely; (1) a single, apex, independent and effective anti-corruption agency to be set up covering both Centre and States, and any complaint of corruption to be investigated and tried in a time bound manner so that a corrupt public servant, be he a politician, officer or judge be sent to jail within two years of the complaint so lodged, (2) A grievance redressal machinery to be set up to redress the grievance of any person within a month of the filing of his grievance relating to denial of any lawful entitlement besides penalizing the guilty official and paying the penalty amount as compensation to the deprived citizen, and (3) Immediate Protection to be provided to the anti-corruption whistle-blowers along with stern punishment to the concerned public servants who might have attacked, threatened or harmed in any manner the whistle blowers to fulfill their evil designs.
Now let us see how far Jan Lokpal Bill in its version 2.2 caters to the above mentioned promises. First of all, as already mentioned, the current Bill concerns itself with Cenre only, where only 10% of country's total corruption takes place, whereas as Justice Santosh Hegde observed a few days back, the common man is harassed by 90% of corruption taking place at the level of States across the country. Thus, sooner the Bill is made inclusive of both Centre and States, better for everybody.
Secondly, the definition of 'Public Servant' as provided under Section 2(11) is not as inclusive as it should have been, since such constitutional authorities as President, Vice-President and Speaker of Lok Sabha are not covered there-under.
Thirdly, the proviso to Section 18 (8) says, "Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the Prime Minister". The Section-18 is captioned as 'Provisions relating to complaints and investigations'. Thus, going by the above proviso, no complaint can be lodged against the Prime Minister nor any enquiry or investigation made into his conduct.
Fourthly, the Section 18(8) says that even if the allegation of corruption against a Minister is substantiated and he should therefore not continue to hold that post, 'Lokpal shall make such recommendation to the President, who shall decide either to accept such recommendation or reject it within a month of its receipt". In case the President rejects the recommendation of Lokpal for removal of the concerned Minister, Lok Pal has no power to do anything about it.
Fifthly, as per Section 28B (2), "For an allegation against a Member of Parliament that he has taken a bribe for any conduct in Parliament, including voting in Parliament or raising question in Parliament or any other matter, a complaint could be made to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of Rajya Sabha, depending upon the House to which that member belongs". Then it is said that a complaint of such nature shall be forwarded to the Ethics Committee within a month of its receipt, and then "The Ethics Committee shall, within a month, decide whether to . .". It is interesting to know that the last line is an incomplete sentence conveying no meaning as such. What is striking here above all is that there is no mention of the word Lok Pal in the entire provision. It clearly says that Lok Pal has no power to receive, let alone dispose of a complaint of corruption against a Member of Parliament in respect of his conduct in Parliament.
Sixthly, Section 18(iii) says, "The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation". It plainly means that the very alleged act of corruption by a public servant into which Lok Pal may be investigating, shall continue in force as before and that too with the unfettered involvement of all other concerned public servants.
Seventhly, in a similar vein Section 18(iv) says, "If, during the course of a preliminary inquiry or investigation under this Act, the Lokpal is prima facie satisfied that the allegation or grievance in respect of any action is likely to be sustained either wholly or partly, it may, through an interim order, recommend the public authority to stay the implementation or enforcement of the decision or action complained against, or to take such mandatory or preventive action, on such terms and conditions, as it may specify in its order to prevent further harm from taking place". Then it goes on to say, "The public authority shall either comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal under this sub-section within 15 days of receipt of such an order". If the concerned public authority rejects such recommendation, which is very much likely to happen, a nonplussed Lokpal, "if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority". Thus, any small or big public authority has been privileged with the discretion to reject Lok Pal's recommendation, and alternatively, once the case moves on to High Court at the instance of Lok Pal himself, there is no predictability about the time-limit or ultimate outcome of the case so lodged in the High Court, since either party, who might lose at the level of High Court, may move the Supreme Court to vindicate his position vis-à-vis that of the opposite party.
Eighthly, the Bill's prvision is made such that Lok Pal's recommendation to a public authority to transfer or suspend any of its officer/employees held guilty prima facie can be defied by that authority with impunity. The Section 18(vi) says, "If during the course of investigation or enquiry into a complaint, the Lokpal feels that continuance of a public servant in that position could adversely affect the course of investigations or enquiry or that the said public servant is likely to destroy or tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses, the Lokpal may issue appropriate recommendations including transfer of that public servant from that position or his suspension, if he is a government servant. The public authority shall either comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal under this sub-section within 15 days of receipt of such an order. Lokpal, if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority". The implication of a helpless Lok Pal approaching the High Court to salvage the matter has already been dealt with above. Thus there would be a veritable scope legally available to the Government servant to manipulate the evidence and witness so as to influence final outcome of the investigation in his favour.
- Ninthly, the Jan Lokpal Bill in its Section 18(vii) says, "The Lokpal may, at any stage of inquiry or investigation under this Act, direct through an interim order, appropriate authorities to take such action as is necessary, pending inquiry or investigation.- (a) to safeguard wastage or damage of public property or public revenue by the administrative acts of the public servant; (b) to prevent further acts of misconduct by the public servant; (c ) to prevent the public servant from secreting the assets allegedly acquired by him by corrupt means." Then like in some previous instances, the public authority is privileged with the discretion to 'comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal . . . within 15 days of receipt of such an order'. In the event of rejection of such recommendation, Lokpal, as in earlier instances, 'if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority', thus leading to endless lingering of the case at different levels with the public servant being enabled to carry on his acts of misappropriation of public wealth, misconduct and stashing of black money in safe havens.
Tenthly, though Section -15 (Making a complaint to the Lokpal) in its sub-section (1) says inter alia that "any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lokpal", the sub-section (1) of Section 8 (Functions of Lokpal) provides no scope to Lokpal for receiving complaints against Judges or Minister/MPs.
Eleventh, though Section-16 (Matters which may be investigated by the Lokpal) provides sweeping power to Lokpal for investigating into any complaint made against any public servant, Section 17 (Matters not subject to investigation) in its sub-section (1) provides too many exceptions under which "the Lokpal shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in case of a grievance". As per this provision, those grievances of a complainant for which "any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or any other recourse before any authority provided in any other law and he has not availed of the same" shall not be investigated by the Lokpal. Again, if a complaint is under consideration by 'a judicial or quasi-judicial body' and the complainant can't prove malafides, it can't come under investigative purview of Lokpal. Then also, "If the substance of the entire grievance is pending before any court or quasi-judicial body of competent jurisdiction", it won't be investigated by the Lokpal. Lastly, another qualification, the meaning of which is not clearly comprehensible, also limits Lokpal's powers to investigative a public grievance- "any grievance where there is inordinate and inexplicable delay in agitating it".
President Mr.Kshirod Rout Advocate intervening in the discussion added that the sub-section (2) of Section 17 is another great factor constricting Lokpal's purview of investigation. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorising the Lokpal to investigate any action which is taken by or with the approval of the Presiding Officer of either House of Parliament". Thus not only any alleged act of corruption by the Speaker or Chairman of Rajya Sabha, but also that of any Minister, MP or official who are in the good book of Speaker or Chairman of Rajya Sabha shall enjoy immunity from the investigative scanner of Lokpal.
Twelfth, continuing his talk Mr. Chitta Ranjan Behera Advocate observed that the parental mandate of redressing the grievance of a deprived or defrauded citizen within a month of the receipt of his complaint along with penalization of the guilty official and payment of the penalty amount to the harassed complainant by way of compensation has also been belied by the Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2. Ironically, the Chapter titled 'Grievance Redressal Systems' which deals with the related provisions (Sections 21, 21A and 21B) doesn't provide for any space to Lokpal to receive or adjudicate any grievance of this sort at all. Instead, the procedure prescribed therein for the disposal of a grievance is multilayered, time killing and confusing to no end. Surprisingly there are two separate Sections (Annual Integrity Audit, and Allegations of Misconduct) bearing the identical Serial Number i.e. 21B. Let's now see how the multi-stage grievance redressal procedure is laid out in this Chapter. Firstly, Section 21(3) says, "Each public authority shall designate an official called Public Grievance Redressal Officer, whom a complainant should approach for any violation of the Citizens Charter". But Section 21A (1) says a different thing- "The Chief Vigilance Officer of any public authority shall declare such number of Vigilance Officers, as it deems fit, to be known as Appellate Grievance Officers, to receive and dispose grievances related to that public authority". Then again, Section 21A (2) announces a new position saying, "If a citizen fails to receive satisfactory redressal to his grievance within a month of making a complaint to Public Grievance Redressal Officer, can make a complaint to Appellate Grievance Officer". Next, it is true, the Section 21A (3) prescribes a duration of one month from the date of the receipt of the complaint, within which the Appellate Grievance Officer shall dispose of the grievance, but peculiarly enough, if it relates to an issue falling outside the Citizens' Charter. The Section 21 A (4) defines 'vigilance angle' and the next provision Section 21A (5) endows the Appellate Grievance Officer with the power to penalize a guilty officer with a fine at the rate of Rs.250/- per day for the entire period of delay in delivering the unjustly withheld entitlement to the aggrieved person and compensate the aggrieved complainant with the penalty amount so realized. But the time limit within which the Appellate Grievance Officer shall pronounce his decision on the grievances relating to Citizens' Charter, which is in fact a crucial element in the whole matter, is not clear at all from these provisions. Further, the Section 21A (6) provides for penalties against the guilty officers under the CCS Conduct Rules, thereby leaving out the Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS from the ken of penal action by Lokpal.
Now let us see what kind of endless, multi-layered, labyrinthine appellate process the aggrieved citizen is made to pass through in search of elusive justice. As per Clause (1) of Section 21C the Vigilance Officer, otherwise known as Appellate Grievance Officer "shall conduct an enquiry into each case within 3 months of its receipt and present its report to the Chief Vigilance Officer". Mind it, prior to this, the complainant must have passed through one month of appeal before the concerned Public Grievance Officer as per the earlier referred Section 21A(2). The Clause (2) of Section 21C says, "Within a fortnight of receipt of report, the Chief Vigilance Officer shall constitute a three member bench of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officers other than the one who conducted enquiry at clause (1) above". Then, the Clause (3) and Clause (4) read together provide that the said Bench shall hold a summary hearing of the vigilance officer who conducted enquiry, the complainant and the guilty officers and pass an order 'within a month of the constitution of the bench' 'imposing one or more of the minor or major penalties on the accused government servants', "provided that such order shall be in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate appointing authority". However, the matter is not finished there. The Clause (5) says, "An appeal shall lie against the order of the bench before the Chief Vigilance officer, who shall pass an order within a month of receipt of appeal, after giving reasonable opportunity to the accused, the complainant and the vigilance officer who conducted enquiries". It is to be noted here that the said appeal before the CVO can be lodged by anyone of the 3 parties including accused officers and vigilance officer to reverse the decision on penalty made by the bench.
To recapitulate, the PGRO shall take one month, followed by Appellate Grievance Officer who shall take 3 months to enquire and report to the CVO, then by CVO who shall take half a month to constitute the Bench for summary hearing, by the Bench which shall take a month to pass its orders, and then by the CVO who shall take one month to dispose of the appeal. Thus the whole process for disposal of a single grievance shall take at least six and half months, and then again there is also no guarantee that the concerned public authority shall execute the order of CVC, since it is not mandatory but recommendatory in nature. Just contrast this weird provision with the tantalizing promise, "you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time".
Mr.Behera summed up his talk with the observation that the draft Jan Lokpal Bill in its present avatar is worse than its official counterpart. and if enacted shall further widen the floodgate of corruption in the country. The civil society in whose name this draft Bill has ironically been bloated out of proportions has the moral obligation to tailor it to the pristine mission that had triggered off the exercise in scripting an alternative to the official bill.
Following the deliberation by Mr.Behera, the President Mr.Kshirod Rout placed his concluding remarks. He suggested that as in the case of previous Seminar, the proceedings of this Seminar pointing out a fresh series of omissions and commissions in the Draft Jan Lokpal Bill shall be mailed to Mr.Anna Hajare and other concerned persons associated with the drafting of Jan Lokpal Bill. The date and venue of the next Seminar on the legal aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill shall be intimated soon. Mr.Baasant Kumar Prusty Advocate Orissa High Court moved a vote of thanks to the chair, speakers and participants, who all made the Seminar a success. He also thanked Basundhara for having facilitated the logistics of the Seminar and Mrs.Saila Behera Secretary Basundhara for her keen participation in the proceedings of the Seminar.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Mr.Khirod Rout, Advocate President
Mr.Chitta Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate Speaker
Mr.Asit Kumar Jena, Advocate
Mr.Subha Bikash Panda Advocate Speaker
Mr.Dipak Kumar Dash, Advocate Speaker
Mr.Tushar Kanta Nayak Advocate
Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera, Advocate Speaker
Mr.Bikash Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Ramesh Sahoo, Advocate
Mrs.Rini Mohanty, Basundhara
Mr.Harihar Nayak, Basundhara
Mr.Raj Kishore Singh, Social activist
Mrs. Saila Behera, Secretary Basundhra Speaker
Mr.Chitta Ranjan Nanda, Advocate
Mr. Bhramarbar Sahu, Trade Unionist
Mr.Bibhu Prsaad Nayak, Advocate Speaker
Mr.Basant Kumar Prusty, Advocate Vote of thanks
Mr.Sailendu Ghosh, Social Worker
Dr.Prashant Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr.Prashant Paltasingh
Mr.Giridhari Nayak, Basundhara
Mr.Akshay Kumar Swain, Basundhara
Mr.Subhasis Patnaik
Anil Chamadia
09868456745
09503834595
--
Regards
Ashutosh Kumar
9971063244