The CVC is unlikely to anything. Almost four years ago, I made a formal complaint to the CVC about corruption in RAW. I personally met the CVC, Mr Pratyush Sinha. Later, a delegation from the Citizens Forum against Corruption comprising Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Admiral Tahliani met the CVC. He did nothing. After an order by the CIC to reveal what action was taken and copies of file notings, they sent a a photo copy of the complaint with the following remarks endorsed on it:-
Most of it distorted and mischeivious. The application too seems pseudonymous. May be filed.
Sd/- Sudhir Kumar, 21.11.2007.
Maj Gen VK Singh
On 21 July 2012 14:26, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. CIC/SM/A/2011/901282 19-01-2010 AllahabadHigh CourtOn 7/21/12, J. P. Shah <jpshah50@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Why not lodge complaint with Central Vigilance Commission for corrupt
> practices in CIC.
>
>
>
> -J. P. SHAH 9924106490
> http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: s.mishra <s.mishra@nic.in>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 9:43 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar
>
>
> To:
>
> Shri. Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commisisoner of India
> Central Information Commission (at New Delhi)
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> 21-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I am caused to represent about the perverse and arbitrary listing of cases
> before your goodself for disposal when it concerns high level Respondents
> and the role of Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar in this.
>
> I am caused to represent to you by a letter addressed to yourself by one Mr.
> C.J.Karira dated 16.July.2012 which I have appended below, and which makes
> pointed allegations against Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar and other CIC officers, but
> mainly against Mr.Shreyaskar.
>
> As the details of "status" of complaints and appeals at the Central
> Information Commission is in the public domain, the citizens are pained to
> observe that your Registry is deliberately delaying hearing the appeals and
> complaints involving high profile Respondents. It is an open secret that Mr.
> Pankaj Shreyaskar is the person to be approached in the CIC to ensure that
> cases are delayed, files are lost or frivolous objections are raised. It is
> also an open secret that Mr.Shreyaskar, who has curiuosly been posted in
> Delhi at the CIC since as long as I can remember, was brought in by
> Mr.Wajahat Habibullah for the purpose of obfuscating and delaying high
> profile RTI requests when the previous officer, Dr. Munish Kumar, declined
> to be as pliable as Mr.Habibullah desired.
>
> By way of example, let me cite an instance concerning Mr. Subhash Chandra
> Agrawal. In Feb/March 2011 Mr. Agrawal filed 3 or 4 2nd Appeals to you and
> also Smt. Sushma Singh. . Smt. Sushma Singh disposed of Mr. Agrawal's 3
> cases within 3 months. On the other hand Mr. Aghrwal's matter before
> yourself concerning the National Advisory Council was delayed for over 15
> months and was only disposed of last week.
>
> Another such example is how Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar and Mr. Habibullah between
> them ensured that 2nd appeals aganst the CBI concerninmg the QUATTROCHI
> investigations were never listed for disposal and files wre repeatedly
> "lost" and CIC's computer records tampered with. After Mr. Habibullah
> demitted office, the "ruling powers" were contrained to ensure that CBI was
> taken out of RTI ambit to preclude the QUATTROCHI files from being disclosed
> under RTI process.
>
> The inescapable conclusion is that something is very rotten in the Registry
> Section(s) of the Central Information Commission. Kindly take urgent steps
> to resolve such problems for the future. As a precondition, it would be
> desirable if Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar's excessively long stay in Delhi at the
> Commission is shortened in the larger public interestand so that reform can
> go through.
>
> I would be obliged if this email is acknowledged.
>
> yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi 110024
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records
> IC(SG)
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>
> To:
> Mr
> Satyananda Mishra
> Chief
> Information Commissioner
> Central Information
> Commission
> August
> Kranti Bhawan
> New Delhi
>
>
> Date: 16 July
> 2012
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> RE: LONG PENDING COMPLAINTS IN THE
> CENTRAL INFORMATION
> COMMISSION
>
> Sir,
> for the last one year and on several occasions, I have brought to your
> notice
> my various Complaints which are long pending in the Commission.
>
> Although
> you have given verbal instructions to various officers and staff, in my
> presence, to list these on a priority basis, it seems that your officers and
> staff are continuously trying to delay the listing of these complaints on
> one
> pretext ore the other.
>
> The
> long pending Complaints are:
>
> S. No. Appeal/Complaint Nr. Filing Date Public Authority
> 2. CIC/SM/A/2011/901284 19-01-2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court> 5. CIC/SM/A/2011/901288 19-01-2010 GujaratHigh Court
> 3. CIC/SM/A/2011/901286 19-01-2010 Guwahati High Court
> 4. CIC/SM/A/2011/901287 19-01-2010 Chattisgarh High Court
> 6. CIC/SM/A/2011/901290 20-01-2010 Himachal Pradesh High Court> 9. CIC/SM/A/2011/901285 23-01-2010 MadrasHigh Court
> 7. CIC/SM/A/2011/901293 21-01-2010 Jharkhand High Court
> 8. CIC/SM/A/2011/901295 21-01-2010 MP High Court
> 10. CIC/SM/A/2011/901289 24-01-2010 Orissa High Court> 11. CIC/SM/A/2011/901316 24-01-2010 PatnaHigh Court
> 12. CIC/SM/A/2011/901147 03-03-2010 Punjab & Haryana High Court> 14. CIC/SM/A/2011/901300 25-04-2010 SikkimHigh Court
> 13. CIC/SM/A/2011/91299 16-03-2010 Rajasthan High Court
> to the extentthat they list matters pertaining> 15. CIC/SM/A/2011/901302 25-04-2010 Uttarakhand High Court
>
>
> As
> you can see from the above table, these have been pending for more than two
> and a half years !
>
> If
> anyone in the Commission had bothered to open these complaints and even
> glanced
> at them casually, he would have realized the effort I have put in to prepare
> these complaints – each Complaint took me at least 3 to 4 days.
>
> Firstly,
> these Complaints were "lost" by Mr
> Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, when he was Dpty. Registrar to the Ex CIC, Mr Wajahat
> Habibullah.
>
> I
> was asked to resubmit the Complaints. The resubmitted
> Complaints were once again "lost". These were finally registered by Mr
> Vijay Bhalla, the present Dpty. Registrar.
>
> I
> have tried my best to meet everyone from the Chief Information Commissioner
> in
> the Commission (including ex Chiefs Mr Habibullah and Mr Tiwari and
> yourself),
> Secretary (the past Secretary and the present Secretary), The Additional
> Secretary, Registrars, Designated Officers and Clerks, repeatedly and on
> several occasions even outside the Commission. I have written innumerable
> letters, emails and repeated reminders. But nothing has happened.
>
> Since
> you became the Chief Information Commissioner in January 2011, I have met
> you in
> person, several times on this issue as well as sent written letters and
> reminders. Based on these, you have issued instructions to your officers and
> staff – but they have even disobeyed and
> disregarded your own instructions.
>
> On
> December 28, 2011 while conducting a hearing against Ten High Courts on
> Section
> 4 suo moto disclosure, in the presence of at least twenty people,
> you instructed Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti, Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar and Mr
> Vijay
> Bhalla – to read these complaints, prepare a comparative chart and put up
> before you within 15 days.
> More than six months have passed, but they have still not done so.
>
> During
> my last conversation with Mr Vijay Bhalla, about a month ago, I was informed
> that if he lists these long pending Complaints, Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti
> and
> Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar are threatening him that there will be "Contempt of
> Court", since there is a stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
> relation to WP(C) 3530 of 2012, Order dated 23.05.2011 .
>
>
> I
> have personally read that stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and
> it
> is obvious that the both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar are trying to
> shelter
> behind this particular stay order so that they can hide their inefficiency,
> lethargy and corrupt practices.
>
> The
> stay order has nothing to do with the subject matter of my above long
> pending
> Complaints and it is clear that both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar have
> neither read any of my Complaints and nor have they understood the stay
> order
> from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
>
> The
> only conclusions I can draw from this bitter
> experience is:
>
> 1. That
> your officers and staff are corrupt and amenable to extraneous influences
> since they have intentionally lost these complaints twice and have also
> disobeyed your repeated instructions.
>
> 2. Your
> officers and staff and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar in particular, have some
> malicious vendetta against me because of which they are intentionally
> and deliberately trying to block the listing of these Complaints since 30
> months.
>
> 3. The
> officers and staff of the Commission are influenced by the "name and fame"
> of the complainant, since I have proof that other Complaints against the
> same public authorities, which have been filed much later than my
> complaints,
> have already been listed, heard and orders passed. Your officers and staff
> are
> therefore discriminating against me on the basis of some unknown
> reasons.
>
> 4. Your officers and staff are disobedient to the extent that they do not
> even follow and obey your own instructions.
> Under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act 2005,"the general superintendence,
> direction and
> management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission"vests in
> you. It is a sad that the officers and staff of the Commission fail to abide
> by the instructions of even the Chief Information
> Commissioner himself, who is the head of the Commission.
>
> 5. The
> Central Information Commission does not follow the "first come first served"
> principle in listing of Complaints. Your officers and staff are lethargic
> and
> oblivious of this principle of fair play OR are corrupt
> to appellants/complainants because they have been "influenced" and "bought
> over" by vested interests.
>
> I am present in Delhi
> on the 18th July 2012 for a hearing of four cases by your good self
> and request you for a personal meeting to resolve this issue once and
> for all.
>
> Sadly,
> I have to state that this is the last attempt I am making to get these long
> pending cases listed and heard, because as you would have realized by now,
> the
> whole experience has been totally frustrating, bitter and a waste of time
> for
> me. Rather than waste my limited resources on the corrupt, inefficient,
> lethargic, incompetent, disobedient and
> insubordinate officers and staff of the Commission, it would be better
> if I spent them on training Citizens and PIOs in using the RTI Act properly
> and
> correctly - at least they have ears !
>
>
> Thanking
> You,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:15 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records
> IC(SG)
>
>
> CIC/SG/A/2012/000643
> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2012_000643_19270_M_84898.pdf
>
> Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
> CPIO & Director
> Central Information Commission
>
> "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
> the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
> number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
> lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
> properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
> states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
> there are no other instances which have been reported to the
> Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
> commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
> not lost and recorded properly."
>
> Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
> Q: Why didn't SG
> inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
> Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
> the CIC's records.
>
> Sarbajit
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.