Appreciated
Wajahat
----- Original Message -----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:44 am
Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
> Sir
>
> I am merely placing before you certain material circulating (or being
> circulated) in the public domain, and so that you can clear the
> aspersions concerning your good name.
>
> 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunan_Poshpora_incident
> "Outraged over the government's handling of the situation, divisional
> commissioner Wajahat Habibullah immediately resigned, and asked for
> early retirement from the Indian Administrative Service.[8]"
> (NB: the reference cited is the usually reliable New York Times
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D6163FF934A35757C0A967958260&n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/India)
>
> 2) The documents obtained by various persons (many of whom
> are on
> this list) from DoPT/PMO etc show that there was great haste between
> 22.Oct.2009 and 24.Oct.2009 for ensuring that only the
> seniormost IC
> would be considered as your successor. Since these were not obtained
> by me I cannot disclose them on a public group like this. I have never
> said that you recommended a successor (although Ms Maja Daruwala has
> claimed that you recommended her name for the post) at the time (it
> may have been a few days earlier). In any case there was a clear
> consensus in the Commission that the seniormost IC be elevated
> as CCIC
> as routine practice. The only confusion being about who that
> seniormost IC was.
>
> 3) The point about Mr Tiwari (ie. the controversy about his relative
> seniority) is a fact and also borne out by documents, which
> inexplicably were leaked by the PMO in RTI despite the fact that they
> were clearly marked as Secret / Confidential by the sender.
>
> So the way I now understand it is
>
> a) That you were offered the SCIC-ship of J&K.
> b) That you conveyed this to Madam President offering to resign as
> CCIC
> c) That Madam President graciously declined your offer (the copy of
> which is not available to anyone in RTI)
> d) That you withdrew your resignation and carried on as CCIC and
> retired in the normal course.
>
> OTH
> a) Ms Omita Paul sent her resignation to Secretary Personnel
> b) That she took up her new job immediately
> c) That the DoPT took legal opinion on what to do in her matter (which
> relied exclusively on a SC judgment revolving around art 124 and
> 217 ), and after about a month the DoPT forwarded her
> letter of
> resignation to Madam President for necessary (post facto) action.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Nov 2, 12:29 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > Two inventions Sarbajit:
> > 1 I never resigned over the alleged rape. It was I who
> conducted the enquiry. The army complied fully with my
> recommendations.> 2. I recommended no successor at the time of
> offering to resign-mind you, unlike Omita's,it was indeed only
> an offer and not a letter of resignation.
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:05 am
> > Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
> challenges notice by CIC
> > To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC"
> <rti_india@googlegroups.com>>
> > > Dear Abhimanyu
> >
> > > 1) You underestimate Mr H. He is made of sterner stuff and
> comes from
> > > good military (British Army) stock which does not run away
> from the
> > > battlefield.
> >
> > > 2) Mr Ansari's competence is not in question. He was a
> competent and
> > > able Information Commissioner. The issue is about the
> politics and
> > > discretion in selection of ICs/CIC.
> >
> > > 3) The point about Mr H's resignation is about principles. This
> > > is not
> > > the first time he has resigned in his career. There was that
> famous> > incident in J*K when he was Divisional Commissioner
> and when
> > > army men
> > > were accused of raping village women. He resigned from the
> IAS on
> > > moral grounds and was persuaded to withdraw it after
> suitable action
> > > was taken.
> >
> > > 4) Mr Tiwari is also said to have reigned from IAS on moral
> grounds> > and when he decided to father the RTI Act.
> > >www.orissa.gov.in/e-
> > > magazine/Orissareview/aug2004/engishPdf/Pages27-31.pdf
> > > Compulsory reading for every RTI activist where "retired
> bureaucrat> > A.N.Tiwari" expresses himself on RTI.
> >
> > > 5) Finally, concerning Mr Irfan Khan, there is no question
> of my
> > > hacking email IDs of HJ group and causing chaos. Certain
> > > moderators /
> > > owners of HJ and RTI4emp are quite fed up and want to have
> > > "democracy" in those groups like we have here. The RTI'ing
> > > public at
> > > large is also fed up with autocrats (NRIs and/or corrupt ex-
> > > babus) and
> > > the opaque censorship policies of those groups..As a true
> > > democrat, I
> > > have provided them (free of cost & as a public service) my
> consultancy> > and advice on how to form / run a google group.
> So the question of
> > > hacking does not arise when the email ID lists are being offered
> > > freely. Incidentally, I have declined to add emails from
> those lists
> > > to rti_india.
> >
> > > 7) With so many clone / copycat RTI groups, it is only a
> matter of
> > > time before the public gets fed up with the mountains of
> email spam
> > > and opts for EITHER democracy (google groups) or
> dictatorship/anarchy> > (yahoo groups) or NEITHER !!!
> >
> > > Sarbajit
> >
> > > On Nov 2, 10:50 pm, Abhimanyu
> <who.will.file....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > sir
> > > > you have many better things to prove . why prove wajahat
> > > was wrong or right
> > > > now ???
> >
> > > > as far as ansari is concerned , as you rightly said
> , he
> > > is in full glare
> > > > of media now . his incompetency will be visible now .
> >
> > > > sarabjit and we all must try to keep wajahat participating in
> > > our groups
> > > > instead of hooting him out.
> >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM, C J Karira
> > > <cjkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Irfan,
> >
> > > > > Fortunately, this is one of those times that
> > > > > Sarbajit has hit the nail on the head.
> > > > > And I can prove it..........
> >
> > > > > RTIwanted
> >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, irfan khan
> > > <rtirti.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Wajahat sir .
> >
> > > > >> plz do not discuss this issue with sarabajit any more.
> >
> > > > >> sarabajit has destroyed this group and hum janege group by
> > > hacking email
> > > > >> IDs of group members.
> >
> > > > >> You cannot roll back yur resignation issue now.
> > > Sarabajit want that you
> > > > >> should stopp participating in this group thats why he is
> > > trying to rack up
> > > > >> your personal issues in this forum .
> >
> > > > >> sarabjit appears to be paid servant of A N Tiwari.
> >
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:50 PM, sroy1947
> > > <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> Sir
> >
> > > > >>> I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat
> > > parsimonious with
> > > > >>> the truth (see below) which has been circulating on
> > > internet forums
> > > > >>> (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
> >
> > > > >>> 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to
> > > Secretary/Personnel> >>> knowing very well that in terms of the
> > > Indian Constitution the
> > > > >>> President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the
> > > Council of
> > > > >>> Ministers.
> >
> > > > >>> 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved from
> > > office by
> > > > >>> 30.Oct..2009
> >
> > > > >>> 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short time
> > > available> >>> that the senior-most Information Commissioner be
> > > recommended for
> > > > >>> elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding that Mr
> > > M.M.Ansari> >>> was the senior-most IC based on his date of
> > > joining the Commission. It
> > > > >>> was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would serve a
> > > full term
> > > > >>> of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on his
> > > date of
> > > > >>> birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
> >
> > > > >>> 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection Committee
> > > could be
> > > > >>> fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
> >
> > > > >>> 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and
> > > established> >>> that he was the senior-most Information
> > > Commissioner through certain
> > > > >>> legal precedents
> >
> > > > >>> 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw your
> > > resignation> >>> on your own despite the fact that there is no
> > > express provision in law
> > > > >>> for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the judgment
> > > of the
> > > > >>> Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation
> > > pertaining to
> > > > >>> articles 124 and 217 of the Const which held that the
> > > resignation is
> > > > >>> effective immediately upon its being submitted.
> >
> > > > >>> 7) And which is why I submitted that it would be much
> > > better to stick
> > > > >>> to the official line, ie. that your resignation was
> > > conditional,> >>> unlike Ms Omita Paul's.
> >
> > > > >>> Sarbajit
> >
> > > > >>> On Nov 2, 7:46 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > > > >>> > My letter was addressed and sent to the President
> > > > >>> > Wajahat
> >
> > > > >>> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>> > From: sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
> > > > >>> > Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former
> > > CIC challenges
> > > > >>> notice by CIC
> > > > >>> > To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> >
> > > > >>> > Sir
> >
> > > > >>> > The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that
> >
> > > > >>> > 1) Your resignation was not effective immediately
> > > because it was
> > > > >>> conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of
> > > office by Madam
> > > > >>> President, thereby distinguishing your case from Ms
> Omita Paul's
> >
> > > > >>> > 2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a
> > > resignation, once
> > > > >>> submitted, to be withdrawn.
> >
> > > > >>> > 3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such
> > > as yours to be
> > > > >>> forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after obtaining
> > > the approval of
> > > > >>> the Minister. This is usually done upto a month after the
> > > date of the
> > > > >>> resignations. In your case, the Minister declined to
> > > forward your
> > > > >>> resignation to Madam President. In other words, Madam
> > > President never even
> > > > >>> had a chance to read your letter of resignation and
> had to
> > > be content with
> > > > >>> press reports.
> >
> > > > >>> > Sarbajit
> >
> > > > >>> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat
> > > <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> > Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make.
> > > And i did
> > > > >>> withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to
> > > conceal the truth
> > > > >>> > Wajahat
> >
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:57 PM, sroy1947
> > > <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> Oh and I forgot to mention that at the meeting of the
> Selection> > > >>> Committee Mr L.K.Advani put his foot down and
> refused to
> > > > >>> accept Mr Ansari as the next CIC. And which also explains
> > > > >>> why Mr Ansari is such a popular choice for
> interlocutor in J&K.
> >
> > > > >>> Sarbajit
> >
> > > > >>> On Nov 2, 10:20 pm, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> > Sir
> >
> > > > >>> > I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat
> > > parsimonious with
> > > > >>> > the truth (see below) which has been circulating on
> > > internet forums
> > > > >>> > (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
> >
> > > > >>> > 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to
> > > Secretary/Personnel> >>> > knowing very well that in terms of
> > > the Indian Constitution the
> > > > >>> > President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the
> > > Council of
> > > > >>> > Ministers.
> >
> > > > >>> > 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved
> > > from office by
> > > > >>> > 30.Oct..2009
> >
> > > > >>> > 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short
> > > time available
> > > > >>> > that the senior-most Information Commissioner be
> > > recommended for
> > > > >>> > elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding
> that Mr
> > > M.M.Ansari> >>> > was the senior-most IC based on his date of
> > > joining the Commission. It
> > > > >>> > was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would
> serve a
> > > full term
> > > > >>> > of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on
> > > his date of
> > > > >>> > birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
> >
> > > > >>> > 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection
> > > Committee could be
> > > > >>> > fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
> >
> > > > >>> > 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and
> > > established> >>> > that he was the senior-most Information
> > > Commissioner through certain
> > > > >>> > legal precedents
> >
> > > > >>> > 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw
> > > your resignation
> > > > >>> > on your own despite the fact that there is no express
> > > provision in law
> > > > >>> > for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the
> > > judgment of the
> > > > >>> > Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation
> > > pertaining to
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »
----- Original Message -----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:44 am
Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
> Sir
>
> I am merely placing before you certain material circulating (or being
> circulated) in the public domain, and so that you can clear the
> aspersions concerning your good name.
>
> 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunan_Poshpora_incident
> "Outraged over the government's handling of the situation, divisional
> commissioner Wajahat Habibullah immediately resigned, and asked for
> early retirement from the Indian Administrative Service.[8]"
> (NB: the reference cited is the usually reliable New York Times
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D6163FF934A35757C0A967958260&n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/India)
>
> 2) The documents obtained by various persons (many of whom
> are on
> this list) from DoPT/PMO etc show that there was great haste between
> 22.Oct.2009 and 24.Oct.2009 for ensuring that only the
> seniormost IC
> would be considered as your successor. Since these were not obtained
> by me I cannot disclose them on a public group like this. I have never
> said that you recommended a successor (although Ms Maja Daruwala has
> claimed that you recommended her name for the post) at the time (it
> may have been a few days earlier). In any case there was a clear
> consensus in the Commission that the seniormost IC be elevated
> as CCIC
> as routine practice. The only confusion being about who that
> seniormost IC was.
>
> 3) The point about Mr Tiwari (ie. the controversy about his relative
> seniority) is a fact and also borne out by documents, which
> inexplicably were leaked by the PMO in RTI despite the fact that they
> were clearly marked as Secret / Confidential by the sender.
>
> So the way I now understand it is
>
> a) That you were offered the SCIC-ship of J&K.
> b) That you conveyed this to Madam President offering to resign as
> CCIC
> c) That Madam President graciously declined your offer (the copy of
> which is not available to anyone in RTI)
> d) That you withdrew your resignation and carried on as CCIC and
> retired in the normal course.
>
> OTH
> a) Ms Omita Paul sent her resignation to Secretary Personnel
> b) That she took up her new job immediately
> c) That the DoPT took legal opinion on what to do in her matter (which
> relied exclusively on a SC judgment revolving around art 124 and
> 217 ), and after about a month the DoPT forwarded her
> letter of
> resignation to Madam President for necessary (post facto) action.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Nov 2, 12:29 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > Two inventions Sarbajit:
> > 1 I never resigned over the alleged rape. It was I who
> conducted the enquiry. The army complied fully with my
> recommendations.> 2. I recommended no successor at the time of
> offering to resign-mind you, unlike Omita's,it was indeed only
> an offer and not a letter of resignation.
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:05 am
> > Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
> challenges notice by CIC
> > To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC"
> <rti_india@googlegroups.com>>
> > > Dear Abhimanyu
> >
> > > 1) You underestimate Mr H. He is made of sterner stuff and
> comes from
> > > good military (British Army) stock which does not run away
> from the
> > > battlefield.
> >
> > > 2) Mr Ansari's competence is not in question. He was a
> competent and
> > > able Information Commissioner. The issue is about the
> politics and
> > > discretion in selection of ICs/CIC.
> >
> > > 3) The point about Mr H's resignation is about principles. This
> > > is not
> > > the first time he has resigned in his career. There was that
> famous> > incident in J*K when he was Divisional Commissioner
> and when
> > > army men
> > > were accused of raping village women. He resigned from the
> IAS on
> > > moral grounds and was persuaded to withdraw it after
> suitable action
> > > was taken.
> >
> > > 4) Mr Tiwari is also said to have reigned from IAS on moral
> grounds> > and when he decided to father the RTI Act.
> > >www.orissa.gov.in/e-
> > > magazine/Orissareview/aug2004/engishPdf/Pages27-31.pdf
> > > Compulsory reading for every RTI activist where "retired
> bureaucrat> > A.N.Tiwari" expresses himself on RTI.
> >
> > > 5) Finally, concerning Mr Irfan Khan, there is no question
> of my
> > > hacking email IDs of HJ group and causing chaos. Certain
> > > moderators /
> > > owners of HJ and RTI4emp are quite fed up and want to have
> > > "democracy" in those groups like we have here. The RTI'ing
> > > public at
> > > large is also fed up with autocrats (NRIs and/or corrupt ex-
> > > babus) and
> > > the opaque censorship policies of those groups..As a true
> > > democrat, I
> > > have provided them (free of cost & as a public service) my
> consultancy> > and advice on how to form / run a google group.
> So the question of
> > > hacking does not arise when the email ID lists are being offered
> > > freely. Incidentally, I have declined to add emails from
> those lists
> > > to rti_india.
> >
> > > 7) With so many clone / copycat RTI groups, it is only a
> matter of
> > > time before the public gets fed up with the mountains of
> email spam
> > > and opts for EITHER democracy (google groups) or
> dictatorship/anarchy> > (yahoo groups) or NEITHER !!!
> >
> > > Sarbajit
> >
> > > On Nov 2, 10:50 pm, Abhimanyu
> <who.will.file....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > sir
> > > > you have many better things to prove . why prove wajahat
> > > was wrong or right
> > > > now ???
> >
> > > > as far as ansari is concerned , as you rightly said
> , he
> > > is in full glare
> > > > of media now . his incompetency will be visible now .
> >
> > > > sarabjit and we all must try to keep wajahat participating in
> > > our groups
> > > > instead of hooting him out.
> >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM, C J Karira
> > > <cjkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Irfan,
> >
> > > > > Fortunately, this is one of those times that
> > > > > Sarbajit has hit the nail on the head.
> > > > > And I can prove it..........
> >
> > > > > RTIwanted
> >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, irfan khan
> > > <rtirti.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Wajahat sir .
> >
> > > > >> plz do not discuss this issue with sarabajit any more.
> >
> > > > >> sarabajit has destroyed this group and hum janege group by
> > > hacking email
> > > > >> IDs of group members.
> >
> > > > >> You cannot roll back yur resignation issue now.
> > > Sarabajit want that you
> > > > >> should stopp participating in this group thats why he is
> > > trying to rack up
> > > > >> your personal issues in this forum .
> >
> > > > >> sarabjit appears to be paid servant of A N Tiwari.
> >
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:50 PM, sroy1947
> > > <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> Sir
> >
> > > > >>> I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat
> > > parsimonious with
> > > > >>> the truth (see below) which has been circulating on
> > > internet forums
> > > > >>> (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
> >
> > > > >>> 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to
> > > Secretary/Personnel> >>> knowing very well that in terms of the
> > > Indian Constitution the
> > > > >>> President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the
> > > Council of
> > > > >>> Ministers.
> >
> > > > >>> 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved from
> > > office by
> > > > >>> 30.Oct..2009
> >
> > > > >>> 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short time
> > > available> >>> that the senior-most Information Commissioner be
> > > recommended for
> > > > >>> elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding that Mr
> > > M.M.Ansari> >>> was the senior-most IC based on his date of
> > > joining the Commission. It
> > > > >>> was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would serve a
> > > full term
> > > > >>> of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on his
> > > date of
> > > > >>> birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
> >
> > > > >>> 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection Committee
> > > could be
> > > > >>> fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
> >
> > > > >>> 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and
> > > established> >>> that he was the senior-most Information
> > > Commissioner through certain
> > > > >>> legal precedents
> >
> > > > >>> 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw your
> > > resignation> >>> on your own despite the fact that there is no
> > > express provision in law
> > > > >>> for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the judgment
> > > of the
> > > > >>> Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation
> > > pertaining to
> > > > >>> articles 124 and 217 of the Const which held that the
> > > resignation is
> > > > >>> effective immediately upon its being submitted.
> >
> > > > >>> 7) And which is why I submitted that it would be much
> > > better to stick
> > > > >>> to the official line, ie. that your resignation was
> > > conditional,> >>> unlike Ms Omita Paul's.
> >
> > > > >>> Sarbajit
> >
> > > > >>> On Nov 2, 7:46 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > > > >>> > My letter was addressed and sent to the President
> > > > >>> > Wajahat
> >
> > > > >>> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>> > From: sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
> > > > >>> > Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former
> > > CIC challenges
> > > > >>> notice by CIC
> > > > >>> > To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> >
> > > > >>> > Sir
> >
> > > > >>> > The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that
> >
> > > > >>> > 1) Your resignation was not effective immediately
> > > because it was
> > > > >>> conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of
> > > office by Madam
> > > > >>> President, thereby distinguishing your case from Ms
> Omita Paul's
> >
> > > > >>> > 2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a
> > > resignation, once
> > > > >>> submitted, to be withdrawn.
> >
> > > > >>> > 3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such
> > > as yours to be
> > > > >>> forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after obtaining
> > > the approval of
> > > > >>> the Minister. This is usually done upto a month after the
> > > date of the
> > > > >>> resignations. In your case, the Minister declined to
> > > forward your
> > > > >>> resignation to Madam President. In other words, Madam
> > > President never even
> > > > >>> had a chance to read your letter of resignation and
> had to
> > > be content with
> > > > >>> press reports.
> >
> > > > >>> > Sarbajit
> >
> > > > >>> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat
> > > <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> > Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make.
> > > And i did
> > > > >>> withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to
> > > conceal the truth
> > > > >>> > Wajahat
> >
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:57 PM, sroy1947
> > > <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> Oh and I forgot to mention that at the meeting of the
> Selection> > > >>> Committee Mr L.K.Advani put his foot down and
> refused to
> > > > >>> accept Mr Ansari as the next CIC. And which also explains
> > > > >>> why Mr Ansari is such a popular choice for
> interlocutor in J&K.
> >
> > > > >>> Sarbajit
> >
> > > > >>> On Nov 2, 10:20 pm, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> > Sir
> >
> > > > >>> > I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat
> > > parsimonious with
> > > > >>> > the truth (see below) which has been circulating on
> > > internet forums
> > > > >>> > (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
> >
> > > > >>> > 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to
> > > Secretary/Personnel> >>> > knowing very well that in terms of
> > > the Indian Constitution the
> > > > >>> > President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the
> > > Council of
> > > > >>> > Ministers.
> >
> > > > >>> > 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved
> > > from office by
> > > > >>> > 30.Oct..2009
> >
> > > > >>> > 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short
> > > time available
> > > > >>> > that the senior-most Information Commissioner be
> > > recommended for
> > > > >>> > elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding
> that Mr
> > > M.M.Ansari> >>> > was the senior-most IC based on his date of
> > > joining the Commission. It
> > > > >>> > was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would
> serve a
> > > full term
> > > > >>> > of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on
> > > his date of
> > > > >>> > birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
> >
> > > > >>> > 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection
> > > Committee could be
> > > > >>> > fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
> >
> > > > >>> > 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and
> > > established> >>> > that he was the senior-most Information
> > > Commissioner through certain
> > > > >>> > legal precedents
> >
> > > > >>> > 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw
> > > your resignation
> > > > >>> > on your own despite the fact that there is no express
> > > provision in law
> > > > >>> > for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the
> > > judgment of the
> > > > >>> > Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation
> > > pertaining to
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »
No comments:
Post a Comment