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 <sroy1947@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
> > >>> > 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
----- Original Message -----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@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
> > >>> > 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
No comments:
Post a Comment