Saturday, December 31, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Response from CPIO after the first appeal

Does the RTI Act 2005 Permit a Second or a Subsequent First appeal As Detailed under Section 19(1) , If My memory Does Fail Nothing of Such Sort is Written or Provided in tha ACT . Further It Is A fact that There is provision for a Making a Revision of the First appeal .
Therefore In accordance with the recent SC Order in State of Manipur Vs SCIC Manipur(12/12/2011) A Complaint under Sec18.1.F "in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining acess to Records under this Act" is the suitable Next Move . However the Technical Gltich here is Penalty May Be imposed and Getting your Information "Status of the Complaint" will and can be only incidental
N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota & RTI study Center , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.


--- On Sun, 1/1/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Response from CPIO after the first appeal
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 1 January, 2012, 8:46 AM
> Go for first appeal again. tell the
> AA that wrong information has been
> provided.Tell the facts to the AA.
>
>
> On 1/1/12, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Friends,
> >
> > My father Sh. Harish Kumar Agarwal is eligible to
> receive pension under
> > Employees Pension Scheme-1995. He retd. in the year
> 2006, However the co.
> > he worked for shut down its operation in 1998. The
> company was subscribed
> > to Provident Fund Trust regulated by Employees
> Provident Fund Organisation.
> > The Trust was dissolved in 2001 and the all the money
> in the  trust was
> > transferred to Regional Provident Fund
> Commissioner-II, Bandra, Mumbai,
> > Maharashtra under PF number MH/4867/82.
> >
> > My father applied for the provident fund, and pension.
> After following up
> > for 4 years, and filing complaints with Central
> Provident Fund
> > commissioner, my father received his PF accumulations
> > in 2010. but was not given his pension till this date.
> He has applied for
> > the pension 4, to 5 number of times, and filed
> complaints to Central PF
> > office also (multiple times). However, PF office
> Bandra, Mumbai has not yet
> > looked into the complaints.
> >
> > When he filed RTI application to know the status of
> the complaint, PF
> > office Bandra didn't reply before the first appeal was
> filed. After the
> > first appeal, the reply obtained from the PF office
> > was shocking to us.
> >
> > The copy of the reply is enclosed. The reply said the
> form was returned to
> > the employer on 01/03/2010, However the letter
> obtained from the
> > RPFC-Kandivli  clearly mentioned the date on
> which the complaint was
> > forwarded to RPFC-II Bandra on  09/03/2011- copy
> attached.
> >
> > I am unable to decide on the next move now
> > 1) File a II appeal or a complaint with CIC, New
> Delhi.
> >     I will get a hearing sooner or
> later but that would yield some
> > information from the PF office. My father would not
> get the pension by
> > filing a CIC complaint/appeal.
> >
> > The very sad part of the story is:
> > There were two more people who applied for the pension
> at the same time my
> > father had applied. *The company (employer) official
> asked to pay Rs.
> > 4000/- each*. The other two paid the money and they
> are enjoying the
> > pension. I have their PF numbers on record. My father
> denied paying 4000/-,
> > and we are now made to suffer.
> >
> > It is clearly mentioned in the rule book of the
> EPS-1995 Act that
> > Pensionary benefits cannot be denied to any
> member  for any fault of the
> > employer.
> > Kindly advise.
> >
> > attachments: PF office reply, and the letter of
> compaint.
> > Thanks
> > Abhinav Agarwal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Abhinav
> >
> > "
> > Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never
> tires, and a touch
> > that never hurts...
> > "
> >
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001,
> INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

Re: [HumJanenge]

THANX>>HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND FAMILY>>UMESH

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM, raj kishore vaish <vmrajkishore@gmail.com> wrote:
Wish You Very Very Happy New Year.

--
   RKishore Vaish
( Raj Kishore Vaish )
 118,Choubey Tola,
   SITAPUR, U.P.
     09807952137

Re: [HumJanenge]

Dear Raj Kishore,

I don't know you all - but a very happy new year.

Thanks - Love 
Sidharth

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM, raj kishore vaish <vmrajkishore@gmail.com> wrote:
Wish You Very Very Happy New Year.

--
   RKishore Vaish
( Raj Kishore Vaish )
 118,Choubey Tola,
   SITAPUR, U.P.
     09807952137

Re: [HumJanenge] Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta

Dear Chitta,
 
        Possibly my  understanding is below par. I feel the LOk Pal bill is the most stupidest bill one could  come across. As I said, I  might be wrong in my grasp.
 
        According to me, the Lok pal should be a person who is free to investigate corruption charges in any quarters   including Rashtrapathi Bhawan.  So, I don't understand why some personalities are kept outside the ambit of LP.  Does it mean they can indulge in corrupt pracitces and no one can touch them ! It seems to be an open cheque case for them.  
 
        Next, the LP is only an investigating and  prosecuting agency.  Would he file the case in any court of law for disposal? That will be the doom.  Courts may take 10 - 15 years.  Our courts are notorious for speed.
 
        Next, there are millions of cases of corruption/malpractices in the land.  How could the LP body of nine members deal with this volume? In my opinion the LP  would  need around  2 million inspectors for investigation.
 
       Could you correct me where I am wrong in my reading of the bill.
 
       Thank you,
        
                                     Israel Jayakaran, Colonel (Retd), Signals, Chennai.
 
 Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:43 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta

Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta 
(A critical lapse in recent Lokpal discourse in Indian Parliament)

Now that the noise around Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill 2011 in both houses of Parliament has cooled off, it deserves of every watchful citizen, whosoever wish to see an effective anti-corruption law emerge at the end of the day, to go for a quick recap of what in fact went by during the eventful days of 27 to 29 December in Delhi's chilly winter. Numerous people like this author, who otherwise couldn't afford the luxury of sitting glued to TV Screens almost 24X7, were however self-urged to do that very thing during those 3 days. Doubtless it speaks volumes of the phenomenal heat that Anna movement generated all over, embracing its supporters and detractors alike. What a spectacle! At one end, a sick but spirited Anna was found fasting on MMRD Ground at Mumbai demanding a strong Lokpal law and at the other, some hundreds of agitated but cunning MPs joining over the issue in an extended duration of Parliament's winter session at Delhi, both obviously forsaking the X-mass festivity. One thing came out in bold relief, much to the glory of our democracy that if and when the members of public, who are the real but invisible masters, would ever want their army of servants including the Members of Parliament to comply with any of their strong wishes, the latter shall perforce and willy-nilly attend to the same, even working overtime.
However, the moot point arises- did the Parliamentarians accomplish the task they had taken on their reluctant shoulders, albeit under the duress of a strident public opinion? The overwhelming response to this all-important question is a negative one, especially going by the fact that the two major players, Congress representing the Government and BJP the opposition, instead of doing necessary introspection, have started trading charges against each other for 'choreographing' the Bill's failure to come through in the winter session. Be that as it may, this failure seems to be a blessing in disguise, in the sense that not only Team Anna but also the MPs belonging to every warring camp would now avail the much needed breathing space to scan in the cool of their study the multifarious and complicated provisions laid down in a barrage of voluminous Bills, all packaged alongside of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, such as the ones on Whistle Blowers Protection, Citizens Grievance Redress and Judicial Standards and Accountability.
As revealed from Rajya Sabha debates, all parties except Congress the mover of the Bill fought it tooth and nail on several grounds, and a couple of such grounds around which there prevailed a near unanimity among the opposition were (1) the constitution of Lokayukta in States to be left to the discretion of the States themselves, and (2) freedom of CBI from Governmental control. While their position on Lokayukta nakedly went against the Sense of House Resolution of 27 August to which they were as much parties as the Congress was, the other position maintained by them was apparently a well-intentioned one and resonated with what Team Anna in fact used to thrust on. But question arises, assuming that the CBI is freed from governmental control and even brought under the administrative control of Lokpal, shall this dispensation render the latter as much a powerful body as it deserves to be?    
Answer to this crucial poser is sadly an emphatic no. What shall the Lokpal do with CBI kept at its beck and call, if it has no power at all to enquire, investigate or prosecute the Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS? And that is exactly what transpires from a plain reading of the sub-section (4) under Section 23 of the Bill. Section 23 captioned as 'Previous sanction not necessary for investigation and initiating prosecution by Lokpal in certain cases' has a total of 4 sub-sections, out of which the first two are enabling or so to say, empowering provisions for Lokpal, while the remaining two are limiting or so to say disempowering ones. The sub-section (1) does away with any previous sanction or approval from any authority that may be required under Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 6A of DSPE Act 1946 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988 for the Lokpal before conducting a preliminary inquiry into a complaint of corruption involving a public servant, or before filing of any charge-sheet or closure report on completion of investigation before the Special Court. At tandem with the above the sub-section (2) allows a Special Court, after the charge-sheet is filed, to take cognizance of offence committed by any public servant irrespective of anything contained in Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988. Then, the ensuing couple of sub-sections do prescribe exceptions to the above mentioned powers of Lokpal in respect of investigation and prosecution of public servants accused of corruption.
The first exception laid down in sub-section (3) excludes those authorities from the ambit of Lokpal who hold constitutional offices and in respect of whom a procedure for removal has been specified in the constitution itself. Such constitutional authorities are, for instance President, Vice-President, Governor, Chief Justices and Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts, Speakers and C&AG to name a few. But the next exception laid down in sub-section (4) is a very alarming one in view of the fact that it exempts the entire class of topnotch bureaucrats from any liability to investigation or prosecution by Lokpal even if serious allegations of corruption are advanced against them. The sub-section (4) says, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution".
As a matter of fact, Article 311 of Constitution, by way of prescribing complicated procedures for enquiry, investigation or prosecution, provides a large measure of immunity to the members of civil services of the Union and States and All India Services from imposition of penalties against their acts of corruption. "The constitutional safeguards have in practice acted to shield the guilty against the swift and certain punishment for abuse of public office for private gain. A major corollary has been erosion of accountability. It has accordingly become necessary to revisit the issue of constitutional safeguards under article 311 to ensure that the honest and efficient officials are given the requisite protection but the dishonest are not allowed to prosper in office." (vide Para 6.7.4 Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2002). The article 311 being thus the escape route for the corrupt civil servants, the observation of its mandate as underlined in Section 23(4) of the Bill would simply but surely limit Lokpal's jurisdiction to nab such elements.
A superficial reading of sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Section 14(1) of the Bill, which together refers to Groups A, B, C and D officers of Union, has misled many to a general impression that the present Bill brings all categories of civil servants of the Union within the ambit of Lokpal without exception. However, we need to remember that the members of All India Services such as IAS, IPS and IFS stand exempted outside of the aforesaid 4 categories of employees covered under Central Civil Services. In fact, the chief instrument which has delineated group-wise classification of Central Civil Service employees into A, B, C and D Groups is the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the latter in its Rule-3 (Application) stipulates inter alia that it won't apply to 'any member of the All India Services.' In fact, the members of All India Services are regulated by altogether separate instruments in force, such as All India Services Act 1951 and All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Coming back to Section 23(4) of the Bill, we notice that even if we, going by the sub-clauses (e) and (f) its Section 14(1) allow for the coverage of civil services of the Union and States as referred under Article-311, to be brought under the investigating and prosecuting ambit of Lokpal, the case of All India Services is still left out there-from.
Further, the Bill in its Part-III (Lokayukta for a State) just in the manner of already referred Section 23(4) does also provide for protection to the civil servants including officers of All India Services from the jurisdiction of Lokayukta. The Section 84(4) occurring in Bill's Chapter-VII (Procedure in respect of Preliminary Enquiry and Investigation) brings out the exemption thus, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution". 
Now that the real implications of a scrappy reference to Article 311 of Constitution occurring in the contexts of both Lokpal and Lokayukta have been laid bare, the other matter referred therein i.e. Article 320 (3)(c ) needs to be decoded of its real import too. It mandates that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted "on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters". It simply means that the Lokpal at Centre or the Lokayukta in a State can't advise the concerned public authority on the type of disciplinary action to be taken against a corrupt civil servant of Centre or State without having a consultation with the concerned UPSC or SPSU. Since the Bill doesn't mention any time-limit within which the Commissions shall tender their views in the matter, the task of prosecuting the guilty civil servant by the Lokpal or Lokayukta may hang fire to no end, as witnessed ever in the past.
It is ironical that with everybody from Team Anna to Parliament getting frenzied around 'lower bureaucracy', the shrewdly drafted official Bill shielded the topnotch bureaucracy from the ken of anti-corruption ombudsman altogether. So much so that you may now get a deviant sweeper punished through the route of CVC though, but you can't get a complaint against a corrupt Secretary or Commissioner enquired into by Lokpal or Lokayukta.
Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile- 9437577546, dt 31.122.2011

RE: [HumJanenge] RE: Not a flop show: Anna Hazare’ s fast is over but people's fight is on

Dear Sh Jasvir,
Thanks.
Ea kaur Eak Garah hotey  hai
Col Dharma


Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] RE: Not a flop show: Anna Hazare' s fast is over but people's fight is on
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
From: jasvir70@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:33:06 +0000

Dear col dharma. Very well said. And a very happy new year to u

Regards

Jasvir.

From: krantikumar dharmadhikary <krdharma@yahoo.co.in>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:30:56 +0530 (IST)
To: <ashishm@governancenow.com>; <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
ReplyTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] RE: Not a flop show: Anna Hazare' s fast is over but people's fight is on

Dear Friends,
The fight should be against corruption and not for or against lokpal.
There are enough of laws,it is the implementation and obeying/following is lacking
Let us start fighting "Individually" ,obeying/following personally.
Do not wait for any one.
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2012
Col Dharma

--- On Fri, 30/12/11, Prem Gaba <premgaba@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Prem Gaba <premgaba@hotmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] RE: Not a flop show: Anna Hazare's fast is over but people's fight is on
To: ashishm@governancenow.com, "Humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, 30 December, 2011, 1:28 PM

Dear Mr Ashish Mehta,
 
Thank you for this excellent article below. Its not only interesting but very much  relvent to the debate going on  in the country. I am sure majority of the readers will agree with you.
 
 Last night Bill was not passed in RS. Most of the Parties were saying that its toothless. Now whether they were sincere or saying for the sake of voters' consumption is any body's guess. Because there were leaders who were dead against Annas protest & his demands since April & suddenly started  saying that its a weak bill. Then there are people who say that netas are NOT responsible for this mass corruption at every step. As I said in my earlier mail also that  if this class is taimed, rest will automatically fall in line.
 
There is an opinion & I respect every opinion whether one  agrees or not, that if the salaries of the Govt servants/Police  are increased they will not be corrupt.
 
If that be so then why do we have a large no  of senior bureaucrats in Govt, Judiciary & Police Officers who are  well paid with liberal  perks, enjoy  high status &  are still  corrupt !! . Morality,values & honesty has to come from within or it must be forced with strict laws. There has to be a sense of fear in those who are out to make quick money by dishonest means.Yes compulsory Army service  will inculcate discipline & honesty to a degree . Mr E Sreedharan, also called Metroman (who retires today at 76 !!, has shown what honesty & sincerity  can do for the nation.  
 
Regards
 
Prem Gaba
 

----------------------------------------------------

Not a flop show: Anna Hazare's fast is over but people's fight is on

Movement has taken the roots of democracy deeper
Ashish Mehta | New Delhi | December 29 2011
  •  
ashishm's picture
Ashish is a deputy editor with Governance Now.

Share

0
Cynicism is like love. It means never having to say you're sorry. Sooner or later, reality proves your predictions right in nine out of ten cases. Those who predicted little will come out the anti-corruption campaign can give a smug smile now. Those who predicted Anna will lose steam have got their I-told-you-so moment.

The Lokpal bill has cleared the first hurdle, but the second one looks tougher. Even if the bill is passed, what we will get will be a toothless tiger, not different from the central vigilance commission (CVC), only worse in that it will add to the multiplicity of agencies supposedly at work to punish the corrupt. Nothing will change.

Cynics have had a grand time in 2011, and guaranteed to have more in the years to come.
But if you are not a cynic, if you belong to a sub-species, Homo optimisticus – you know, the type who looks at a maidan and says it is half full – then there is little to feel sorry about it. "Anna's Flop Show" (as one headline put it) is just an occasional dip, but look at the other side.

At the beginning of 2011, the Commonwealth Games had continued to make headlines, more details were coming out on the 2G scandal, the Adarsh housing society scam was about to unfold afresh. But all the shenanigans were smirking.

A group of concerned citizens, the activist-intellectual types, carried out a rally from the Rajghat to the Ramlila Maidan on the occasion of January 30, demanding some action on corruption front. No traffic diversions were needed, the rally was so thin. A couple of months later the redoubtable Baba Ramdev also had a do at the Ramlila Grounds, and passengers in the buses looked at the modest gathering and gave a yawn.

Cynics were surely having an upper hand. Corruption is worth fighting against, and if somebody else is fighting the fight, so much the better.

Thus, it was no surprise that on April 5, newspapers devoted a single-column item to a social activist's proposed protest at the Jantar Mantar. Little did they know they were going to be forced to devote many more columns to the man little known outside western India.

Read the full coverage since April 5, news, views and more. Click here.

It has been about nine months, a decent gestation period, and what has been achieved to counter cynics?

• People like Aatar Singh, a 64-year-old farmer, have realized that they actually have a voice in democracy. (This village pradhan went all the way from Rohtak to Mumbai to participate in the latest round of Anna's protest fast. You can see his photograph above.) Professors and policemen, housewives and havildars, geeks and garbage collectors, they all have kept fast or given time to show solidarity. Nobody had counted on the youngsters to take up a cause like this. Instead of silly jokes, they started forwarding in emails suggestions to fight graft. [Read more about Anna's curious connect with the youth here]
If you ask cynics, this was not supposed to happen.
• The UPA government has been embarrassed, that early 2011 smirk is gone. There is no longer any comfort in the hope that corruption (and the deeper malaise of which it is a symptom – misgovernance) is a non-issue and the usual identity politics of caste and religion will deliver them victory in 2014.

• The Lokpal, toothless or not, is getting off the ground. Unlike CVC which few people other than bureaucrats and journalists had heard of when it came up, folks like Aatar Singh will be watching the Lokpal (if and when it comes up).

• Above all, a foundation or a platform has been prepared once again, a way has been shown once again, for taking the roots of our democracy deeper. Hissar, for all its debates of politicisation, was the only logical way for a civil society movement to make inroads into the vote-centric democracy.

We are sure the movement so far has more achievements (please write them in the comment box below if you have any other points in mind), but the point is: In 2011 a man (or his team, or the people who responded to him) have shown there is a way.

Which incidentally is the headline of our cover story for the next issue, which will hit the stands on January 1. Don't forget to pick it up, there's much more there.
 

 

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:48:39 +0530
Subject: Not a flop show: Anna Hazare's fast is over but people's fight is on
From: ashishm@governancenow.com
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com; premgaba@hotmail.com; mkkhera@yahoo.com; trivendra54@yahoo.co.in; rekhi@cain.in; pradeepbajaj7@gmail.com; mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in; hemantkshirsagar01@gmail.com

Dear sir/s,

You may find this interesting and possibly relevant to your debate.

With thanks and regards,
ashish

Not a flop show: Anna Hazare's fast is over but people's fight is on
Movement has taken the roots of democracy deeper
http://governancenow.com/news/regular-story/not-flop-show-anna-hazare-s-fast-over-peoples-fight

[HumJanenge] File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/002839

To:
The Chief Information Commissioner of India,
The Central Information Commission at New Delhi

BY EMAIL

01-Jan-2012

Respected Sir

I refer to the Annual Report of the Hon'ble Commission for the year
2010-2011 which I downloaded from the website of the Commission.

At page no.142 therein I find that the UT of Andaman and Nicobar is a
single public authority for purposes of RTI Act 2005. I am therefore
unable to reconcile this fact with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi's recent order
dated 8.12.2011 in the subject appeal, wherein Mr Gandhi has not
objected to CPIOs of the same public authority "transferring" RTI
requests to each other and also there is evidently confusion about the
concerned appellate authorities resulting in no decisions being
delivered by the First Appellate Authorities. As a result of such
slackness, junior officers are enabled being made the scapegoat and
penalised for the sins of their superiors, with Mr Gandhi turning a
Nelson's eye to the improper implementation of RTI Act in UT of A&N -
which UT has been "allocated" to him by yourself u/s 12(4) of the
Act..

Accordingly, I would therefore request you to kind ensure the proper
superintendence of Mr. Gandhi insofar as his independent exercise of
the Commission's powers are concerned,and also since his self imposed
work schedule / large cause list results in hasty, "cyclostyled" and
legally unsound orders which I am now constrained to bring to your
notice for superintendence in terms of the Act.

Yours faithfully,

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Re: [HumJanenge]

Thanks.
Same to you.
Ashok

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM, raj kishore vaish <vmrajkishore@gmail.com> wrote:
Wish You Very Very Happy New Year.

--
   RKishore Vaish
( Raj Kishore Vaish )
 118,Choubey Tola,
   SITAPUR, U.P.
     09807952137



--
Dr.Ashok Ghosh
Erasmus Mundus Fellow, Member SEAC Bihar,
Professor In Charge,
Department of Environment and Water Management,
A.N.College,Patna - 800013
India
Tel:91 612 2282094
Cell:9334205809

Re: [HumJanenge] Response from CPIO after the first appeal

Go for first appeal again. tell the AA that wrong information has been
provided.Tell the facts to the AA.


On 1/1/12, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Friends,
>
> My father Sh. Harish Kumar Agarwal is eligible to receive pension under
> Employees Pension Scheme-1995. He retd. in the year 2006, However the co.
> he worked for shut down its operation in 1998. The company was subscribed
> to Provident Fund Trust regulated by Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
> The Trust was dissolved in 2001 and the all the money in the trust was
> transferred to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Bandra, Mumbai,
> Maharashtra under PF number MH/4867/82.
>
> My father applied for the provident fund, and pension. After following up
> for 4 years, and filing complaints with Central Provident Fund
> commissioner, my father received his PF accumulations
> in 2010. but was not given his pension till this date. He has applied for
> the pension 4, to 5 number of times, and filed complaints to Central PF
> office also (multiple times). However, PF office Bandra, Mumbai has not yet
> looked into the complaints.
>
> When he filed RTI application to know the status of the complaint, PF
> office Bandra didn't reply before the first appeal was filed. After the
> first appeal, the reply obtained from the PF office
> was shocking to us.
>
> The copy of the reply is enclosed. The reply said the form was returned to
> the employer on 01/03/2010, However the letter obtained from the
> RPFC-Kandivli clearly mentioned the date on which the complaint was
> forwarded to RPFC-II Bandra on 09/03/2011- copy attached.
>
> I am unable to decide on the next move now
> 1) File a II appeal or a complaint with CIC, New Delhi.
> I will get a hearing sooner or later but that would yield some
> information from the PF office. My father would not get the pension by
> filing a CIC complaint/appeal.
>
> The very sad part of the story is:
> There were two more people who applied for the pension at the same time my
> father had applied. *The company (employer) official asked to pay Rs.
> 4000/- each*. The other two paid the money and they are enjoying the
> pension. I have their PF numbers on record. My father denied paying 4000/-,
> and we are now made to suffer.
>
> It is clearly mentioned in the rule book of the EPS-1995 Act that
> Pensionary benefits cannot be denied to any member for any fault of the
> employer.
> Kindly advise.
>
> attachments: PF office reply, and the letter of compaint.
> Thanks
> Abhinav Agarwal
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Abhinav
>
> "
> Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch
> that never hurts...
> "
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Response from CPIO after the first appeal

Hi Friends,

My father Sh. Harish Kumar Agarwal is eligible to receive pension under Employees Pension Scheme-1995. He retd. in the year 2006, However the co. he worked for shut down its operation in 1998. The company was subscribed to Provident Fund Trust regulated by Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The Trust was dissolved in 2001 and the all the money in the  trust was transferred to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra under PF number MH/4867/82.

My father applied for the provident fund, and pension. After following up for 4 years, and filing complaints with Central Provident Fund commissioner, my father received his PF accumulations
in 2010. but was not given his pension till this date. He has applied for the pension 4, to 5 number of times, and filed complaints to Central PF office also (multiple times). However, PF office Bandra, Mumbai has not yet looked into the complaints.

When he filed RTI application to know the status of the complaint, PF office Bandra didn't reply before the first appeal was filed. After the first appeal, the reply obtained from the PF office
was shocking to us.

The copy of the reply is enclosed. The reply said the form was returned to the employer on 01/03/2010, However the letter obtained from the RPFC-Kandivli  clearly mentioned the date on which the complaint was forwarded to RPFC-II Bandra on  09/03/2011- copy attached.

I am unable to decide on the next move now
1) File a II appeal or a complaint with CIC, New Delhi.
    I will get a hearing sooner or later but that would yield some information from the PF office. My father would not get the pension by filing a CIC complaint/appeal.

The very sad part of the story is:
There were two more people who applied for the pension at the same time my father had applied. The company (employer) official asked to pay Rs. 4000/- each. The other two paid the money and they are enjoying the pension. I have their PF numbers on record. My father denied paying 4000/-, and we are now made to suffer.

It is clearly mentioned in the rule book of the EPS-1995 Act that Pensionary benefits cannot be denied to any member  for any fault of the employer.
Kindly advise.

attachments: PF office reply, and the letter of compaint.
Thanks
Abhinav Agarwal






--
Thanks
Abhinav
 
"
Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts...
"

[HumJanenge] Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta

Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta 
(A critical lapse in recent Lokpal discourse in Indian Parliament)

Now that the noise around Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill 2011 in both houses of Parliament has cooled off, it deserves of every watchful citizen, whosoever wish to see an effective anti-corruption law emerge at the end of the day, to go for a quick recap of what in fact went by during the eventful days of 27 to 29 December in Delhi's chilly winter. Numerous people like this author, who otherwise couldn't afford the luxury of sitting glued to TV Screens almost 24X7, were however self-urged to do that very thing during those 3 days. Doubtless it speaks volumes of the phenomenal heat that Anna movement generated all over, embracing its supporters and detractors alike. What a spectacle! At one end, a sick but spirited Anna was found fasting on MMRD Ground at Mumbai demanding a strong Lokpal law and at the other, some hundreds of agitated but cunning MPs joining over the issue in an extended duration of Parliament's winter session at Delhi, both obviously forsaking the X-mass festivity. One thing came out in bold relief, much to the glory of our democracy that if and when the members of public, who are the real but invisible masters, would ever want their army of servants including the Members of Parliament to comply with any of their strong wishes, the latter shall perforce and willy-nilly attend to the same, even working overtime.
 
However, the moot point arises- did the Parliamentarians accomplish the task they had taken on their reluctant shoulders, albeit under the duress of a strident public opinion? The overwhelming response to this all-important question is a negative one, especially going by the fact that the two major players, Congress representing the Government and BJP the opposition, instead of doing necessary introspection, have started trading charges against each other for 'choreographing' the Bill's failure to come through in the winter session. Be that as it may, this failure seems to be a blessing in disguise, in the sense that not only Team Anna but also the MPs belonging to every warring camp would now avail the much needed breathing space to scan in the cool of their study the multifarious and complicated provisions laid down in a barrage of voluminous Bills, all packaged alongside of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, such as the ones on Whistle Blowers Protection, Citizens Grievance Redress and Judicial Standards and Accountability.
 
As revealed from Rajya Sabha debates, all parties except Congress the mover of the Bill fought it tooth and nail on several grounds, and a couple of such grounds around which there prevailed a near unanimity among the opposition were (1) the constitution of Lokayukta in States to be left to the discretion of the States themselves, and (2) freedom of CBI from Governmental control. While their position on Lokayukta nakedly went against the Sense of House Resolution of 27 August to which they were as much parties as the Congress was, the other position maintained by them was apparently a well-intentioned one and resonated with what Team Anna in fact used to thrust on. But question arises, assuming that the CBI is freed from governmental control and even brought under the administrative control of Lokpal, shall this dispensation render the latter as much a powerful body as it deserves to be?    
 
Answer to this crucial poser is sadly an emphatic no. What shall the Lokpal do with CBI kept at its beck and call, if it has no power at all to enquire, investigate or prosecute the Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS? And that is exactly what transpires from a plain reading of the sub-section (4) under Section 23 of the Bill. Section 23 captioned as 'Previous sanction not necessary for investigation and initiating prosecution by Lokpal in certain cases' has a total of 4 sub-sections, out of which the first two are enabling or so to say, empowering provisions for Lokpal, while the remaining two are limiting or so to say disempowering ones. The sub-section (1) does away with any previous sanction or approval from any authority that may be required under Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 6A of DSPE Act 1946 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988 for the Lokpal before conducting a preliminary inquiry into a complaint of corruption involving a public servant, or before filing of any charge-sheet or closure report on completion of investigation before the Special Court. At tandem with the above the sub-section (2) allows a Special Court, after the charge-sheet is filed, to take cognizance of offence committed by any public servant irrespective of anything contained in Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988. Then, the ensuing couple of sub-sections do prescribe exceptions to the above mentioned powers of Lokpal in respect of investigation and prosecution of public servants accused of corruption.
 
The first exception laid down in sub-section (3) excludes those authorities from the ambit of Lokpal who hold constitutional offices and in respect of whom a procedure for removal has been specified in the constitution itself. Such constitutional authorities are, for instance President, Vice-President, Governor, Chief Justices and Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts, Speakers and C&AG to name a few. But the next exception laid down in sub-section (4) is a very alarming one in view of the fact that it exempts the entire class of topnotch bureaucrats from any liability to investigation or prosecution by Lokpal even if serious allegations of corruption are advanced against them. The sub-section (4) says, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution".
 
As a matter of fact, Article 311 of Constitution, by way of prescribing complicated procedures for enquiry, investigation or prosecution, provides a large measure of immunity to the members of civil services of the Union and States and All India Services from imposition of penalties against their acts of corruption. "The constitutional safeguards have in practice acted to shield the guilty against the swift and certain punishment for abuse of public office for private gain. A major corollary has been erosion of accountability. It has accordingly become necessary to revisit the issue of constitutional safeguards under article 311 to ensure that the honest and efficient officials are given the requisite protection but the dishonest are not allowed to prosper in office." (vide Para 6.7.4 Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2002). The article 311 being thus the escape route for the corrupt civil servants, the observation of its mandate as underlined in Section 23(4) of the Bill would simply but surely limit Lokpal's jurisdiction to nab such elements.
 
A superficial reading of sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Section 14(1) of the Bill, which together refers to Groups A, B, C and D officers of Union, has misled many to a general impression that the present Bill brings all categories of civil servants of the Union within the ambit of Lokpal without exception. However, we need to remember that the members of All India Services such as IAS, IPS and IFS stand exempted outside of the aforesaid 4 categories of employees covered under Central Civil Services. In fact, the chief instrument which has delineated group-wise classification of Central Civil Service employees into A, B, C and D Groups is the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the latter in its Rule-3 (Application) stipulates inter alia that it won't apply to 'any member of the All India Services.' In fact, the members of All India Services are regulated by altogether separate instruments in force, such as All India Services Act 1951 and All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Coming back to Section 23(4) of the Bill, we notice that even if we, going by the sub-clauses (e) and (f) its Section 14(1) allow for the coverage of civil services of the Union and States as referred under Article-311, to be brought under the investigating and prosecuting ambit of Lokpal, the case of All India Services is still left out there-from.
 
Further, the Bill in its Part-III (Lokayukta for a State) just in the manner of already referred Section 23(4) does also provide for protection to the civil servants including officers of All India Services from the jurisdiction of Lokayukta. The Section 84(4) occurring in Bill's Chapter-VII (Procedure in respect of Preliminary Enquiry and Investigation) brings out the exemption thus, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution". 
 
Now that the real implications of a scrappy reference to Article 311 of Constitution occurring in the contexts of both Lokpal and Lokayukta have been laid bare, the other matter referred therein i.e. Article 320 (3)(c ) needs to be decoded of its real import too. It mandates that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted "on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters". It simply means that the Lokpal at Centre or the Lokayukta in a State can't advise the concerned public authority on the type of disciplinary action to be taken against a corrupt civil servant of Centre or State without having a consultation with the concerned UPSC or SPSU. Since the Bill doesn't mention any time-limit within which the Commissions shall tender their views in the matter, the task of prosecuting the guilty civil servant by the Lokpal or Lokayukta may hang fire to no end, as witnessed ever in the past.
 
It is ironical that with everybody from Team Anna to Parliament getting frenzied around 'lower bureaucracy', the shrewdly drafted official Bill shielded the topnotch bureaucracy from the ken of anti-corruption ombudsman altogether. So much so that you may now get a deviant sweeper punished through the route of CVC though, but you can't get a complaint against a corrupt Secretary or Commissioner enquired into by Lokpal or Lokayukta.
 
Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile- 9437577546, dt 31.122.2011

[rti_india] Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta

 

Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta 
(A critical lapse in recent Lokpal discourse in Indian Parliament)

Now that the noise around Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill 2011 in both houses of Parliament has cooled off, it deserves of every watchful citizen, whosoever wish to see an effective anti-corruption law emerge at the end of the day, to go for a quick recap of what in fact went by during the eventful days of 27 to 29 December in Delhi's chilly winter. Numerous people like this author, who otherwise couldn't afford the luxury of sitting glued to TV Screens almost 24X7, were however self-urged to do that very thing during those 3 days. Doubtless it speaks volumes of the phenomenal heat that Anna movement generated all over, embracing its supporters and detractors alike. What a spectacle! At one end, a sick but spirited Anna was found fasting on MMRD Ground at Mumbai demanding a strong Lokpal law and at the other, some hundreds of agitated but cunning MPs joining over the issue in an extended duration of Parliament's winter session at Delhi, both obviously forsaking the X-mass festivity. One thing came out in bold relief, much to the glory of our democracy that if and when the members of public, who are the real but invisible masters, would ever want their army of servants including the Members of Parliament to comply with any of their strong wishes, the latter shall perforce and willy-nilly attend to the same, even working overtime.
 
However, the moot point arises- did the Parliamentarians accomplish the task they had taken on their reluctant shoulders, albeit under the duress of a strident public opinion? The overwhelming response to this all-important question is a negative one, especially going by the fact that the two major players, Congress representing the Government and BJP the opposition, instead of doing necessary introspection, have started trading charges against each other for 'choreographing' the Bill's failure to come through in the winter session. Be that as it may, this failure seems to be a blessing in disguise, in the sense that not only Team Anna but also the MPs belonging to every warring camp would now avail the much needed breathing space to scan in the cool of their study the multifarious and complicated provisions laid down in a barrage of voluminous Bills, all packaged alongside of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, such as the ones on Whistle Blowers Protection, Citizens Grievance Redress and Judicial Standards and Accountability.
 
As revealed from Rajya Sabha debates, all parties except Congress the mover of the Bill fought it tooth and nail on several grounds, and a couple of such grounds around which there prevailed a near unanimity among the opposition were (1) the constitution of Lokayukta in States to be left to the discretion of the States themselves, and (2) freedom of CBI from Governmental control. While their position on Lokayukta nakedly went against the Sense of House Resolution of 27 August to which they were as much parties as the Congress was, the other position maintained by them was apparently a well-intentioned one and resonated with what Team Anna in fact used to thrust on. But question arises, assuming that the CBI is freed from governmental control and even brought under the administrative control of Lokpal, shall this dispensation render the latter as much a powerful body as it deserves to be?    
 
Answer to this crucial poser is sadly an emphatic no. What shall the Lokpal do with CBI kept at its beck and call, if it has no power at all to enquire, investigate or prosecute the Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS? And that is exactly what transpires from a plain reading of the sub-section (4) under Section 23 of the Bill. Section 23 captioned as 'Previous sanction not necessary for investigation and initiating prosecution by Lokpal in certain cases' has a total of 4 sub-sections, out of which the first two are enabling or so to say, empowering provisions for Lokpal, while the remaining two are limiting or so to say disempowering ones. The sub-section (1) does away with any previous sanction or approval from any authority that may be required under Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 6A of DSPE Act 1946 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988 for the Lokpal before conducting a preliminary inquiry into a complaint of corruption involving a public servant, or before filing of any charge-sheet or closure report on completion of investigation before the Special Court. At tandem with the above the sub-section (2) allows a Special Court, after the charge-sheet is filed, to take cognizance of offence committed by any public servant irrespective of anything contained in Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988. Then, the ensuing couple of sub-sections do prescribe exceptions to the above mentioned powers of Lokpal in respect of investigation and prosecution of public servants accused of corruption.
 
The first exception laid down in sub-section (3) excludes those authorities from the ambit of Lokpal who hold constitutional offices and in respect of whom a procedure for removal has been specified in the constitution itself. Such constitutional authorities are, for instance President, Vice-President, Governor, Chief Justices and Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts, Speakers and C&AG to name a few. But the next exception laid down in sub-section (4) is a very alarming one in view of the fact that it exempts the entire class of topnotch bureaucrats from any liability to investigation or prosecution by Lokpal even if serious allegations of corruption are advanced against them. The sub-section (4) says, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution".
 
As a matter of fact, Article 311 of Constitution, by way of prescribing complicated procedures for enquiry, investigation or prosecution, provides a large measure of immunity to the members of civil services of the Union and States and All India Services from imposition of penalties against their acts of corruption. "The constitutional safeguards have in practice acted to shield the guilty against the swift and certain punishment for abuse of public office for private gain. A major corollary has been erosion of accountability. It has accordingly become necessary to revisit the issue of constitutional safeguards under article 311 to ensure that the honest and efficient officials are given the requisite protection but the dishonest are not allowed to prosper in office." (vide Para 6.7.4 Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2002). The article 311 being thus the escape route for the corrupt civil servants, the observation of its mandate as underlined in Section 23(4) of the Bill would simply but surely limit Lokpal's jurisdiction to nab such elements.
 
A superficial reading of sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Section 14(1) of the Bill, which together refers to Groups A, B, C and D officers of Union, has misled many to a general impression that the present Bill brings all categories of civil servants of the Union within the ambit of Lokpal without exception. However, we need to remember that the members of All India Services such as IAS, IPS and IFS stand exempted outside of the aforesaid 4 categories of employees covered under Central Civil Services. In fact, the chief instrument which has delineated group-wise classification of Central Civil Service employees into A, B, C and D Groups is the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the latter in its Rule-3 (Application) stipulates inter alia that it won't apply to 'any member of the All India Services.' In fact, the members of All India Services are regulated by altogether separate instruments in force, such as All India Services Act 1951 and All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Coming back to Section 23(4) of the Bill, we notice that even if we, going by the sub-clauses (e) and (f) its Section 14(1) allow for the coverage of civil services of the Union and States as referred under Article-311, to be brought under the investigating and prosecuting ambit of Lokpal, the case of All India Services is still left out there-from.
 
Further, the Bill in its Part-III (Lokayukta for a State) just in the manner of already referred Section 23(4) does also provide for protection to the civil servants including officers of All India Services from the jurisdiction of Lokayukta. The Section 84(4) occurring in Bill's Chapter-VII (Procedure in respect of Preliminary Enquiry and Investigation) brings out the exemption thus, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution". 
 
Now that the real implications of a scrappy reference to Article 311 of Constitution occurring in the contexts of both Lokpal and Lokayukta have been laid bare, the other matter referred therein i.e. Article 320 (3)(c ) needs to be decoded of its real import too. It mandates that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted "on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters". It simply means that the Lokpal at Centre or the Lokayukta in a State can't advise the concerned public authority on the type of disciplinary action to be taken against a corrupt civil servant of Centre or State without having a consultation with the concerned UPSC or SPSU. Since the Bill doesn't mention any time-limit within which the Commissions shall tender their views in the matter, the task of prosecuting the guilty civil servant by the Lokpal or Lokayukta may hang fire to no end, as witnessed ever in the past.
 
It is ironical that with everybody from Team Anna to Parliament getting frenzied around 'lower bureaucracy', the shrewdly drafted official Bill shielded the topnotch bureaucracy from the ken of anti-corruption ombudsman altogether. So much so that you may now get a deviant sweeper punished through the route of CVC though, but you can't get a complaint against a corrupt Secretary or Commissioner enquired into by Lokpal or Lokayukta.
 
Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile- 9437577546, dt 31.122.2011

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

[RTI INDIA] Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta

Topnotch bureaucracy kept outside the ken of Lokpal and Lokayukta 
(A critical lapse in recent Lokpal discourse in Indian Parliament)

Now that the noise around Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill 2011 in both houses of Parliament has cooled off, it deserves of every watchful citizen, whosoever wish to see an effective anti-corruption law emerge at the end of the day, to go for a quick recap of what in fact went by during the eventful days of 27 to 29 December in Delhi's chilly winter. Numerous people like this author, who otherwise couldn't afford the luxury of sitting glued to TV Screens almost 24X7, were however self-urged to do that very thing during those 3 days. Doubtless it speaks volumes of the phenomenal heat that Anna movement generated all over, embracing its supporters and detractors alike. What a spectacle! At one end, a sick but spirited Anna was found fasting on MMRD Ground at Mumbai demanding a strong Lokpal law and at the other, some hundreds of agitated but cunning MPs joining over the issue in an extended duration of Parliament's winter session at Delhi, both obviously forsaking the X-mass festivity. One thing came out in bold relief, much to the glory of our democracy that if and when the members of public, who are the real but invisible masters, would ever want their army of servants including the Members of Parliament to comply with any of their strong wishes, the latter shall perforce and willy-nilly attend to the same, even working overtime.
 
However, the moot point arises- did the Parliamentarians accomplish the task they had taken on their reluctant shoulders, albeit under the duress of a strident public opinion? The overwhelming response to this all-important question is a negative one, especially going by the fact that the two major players, Congress representing the Government and BJP the opposition, instead of doing necessary introspection, have started trading charges against each other for 'choreographing' the Bill's failure to come through in the winter session. Be that as it may, this failure seems to be a blessing in disguise, in the sense that not only Team Anna but also the MPs belonging to every warring camp would now avail the much needed breathing space to scan in the cool of their study the multifarious and complicated provisions laid down in a barrage of voluminous Bills, all packaged alongside of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, such as the ones on Whistle Blowers Protection, Citizens Grievance Redress and Judicial Standards and Accountability.
 
As revealed from Rajya Sabha debates, all parties except Congress the mover of the Bill fought it tooth and nail on several grounds, and a couple of such grounds around which there prevailed a near unanimity among the opposition were (1) the constitution of Lokayukta in States to be left to the discretion of the States themselves, and (2) freedom of CBI from Governmental control. While their position on Lokayukta nakedly went against the Sense of House Resolution of 27 August to which they were as much parties as the Congress was, the other position maintained by them was apparently a well-intentioned one and resonated with what Team Anna in fact used to thrust on. But question arises, assuming that the CBI is freed from governmental control and even brought under the administrative control of Lokpal, shall this dispensation render the latter as much a powerful body as it deserves to be?    
 
Answer to this crucial poser is sadly an emphatic no. What shall the Lokpal do with CBI kept at its beck and call, if it has no power at all to enquire, investigate or prosecute the Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS? And that is exactly what transpires from a plain reading of the sub-section (4) under Section 23 of the Bill. Section 23 captioned as 'Previous sanction not necessary for investigation and initiating prosecution by Lokpal in certain cases' has a total of 4 sub-sections, out of which the first two are enabling or so to say, empowering provisions for Lokpal, while the remaining two are limiting or so to say disempowering ones. The sub-section (1) does away with any previous sanction or approval from any authority that may be required under Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 6A of DSPE Act 1946 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988 for the Lokpal before conducting a preliminary inquiry into a complaint of corruption involving a public servant, or before filing of any charge-sheet or closure report on completion of investigation before the Special Court. At tandem with the above the sub-section (2) allows a Special Court, after the charge-sheet is filed, to take cognizance of offence committed by any public servant irrespective of anything contained in Section 197 of CrPC 1973 or Section 19 of PoC Act 1988. Then, the ensuing couple of sub-sections do prescribe exceptions to the above mentioned powers of Lokpal in respect of investigation and prosecution of public servants accused of corruption.
 
The first exception laid down in sub-section (3) excludes those authorities from the ambit of Lokpal who hold constitutional offices and in respect of whom a procedure for removal has been specified in the constitution itself. Such constitutional authorities are, for instance President, Vice-President, Governor, Chief Justices and Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts, Speakers and C&AG to name a few. But the next exception laid down in sub-section (4) is a very alarming one in view of the fact that it exempts the entire class of topnotch bureaucrats from any liability to investigation or prosecution by Lokpal even if serious allegations of corruption are advanced against them. The sub-section (4) says, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution".
 
As a matter of fact, Article 311 of Constitution, by way of prescribing complicated procedures for enquiry, investigation or prosecution, provides a large measure of immunity to the members of civil services of the Union and States and All India Services from imposition of penalties against their acts of corruption. "The constitutional safeguards have in practice acted to shield the guilty against the swift and certain punishment for abuse of public office for private gain. A major corollary has been erosion of accountability. It has accordingly become necessary to revisit the issue of constitutional safeguards under article 311 to ensure that the honest and efficient officials are given the requisite protection but the dishonest are not allowed to prosper in office." (vide Para 6.7.4 Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2002). The article 311 being thus the escape route for the corrupt civil servants, the observation of its mandate as underlined in Section 23(4) of the Bill would simply but surely limit Lokpal's jurisdiction to nab such elements.
 
A superficial reading of sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Section 14(1) of the Bill, which together refers to Groups A, B, C and D officers of Union, has misled many to a general impression that the present Bill brings all categories of civil servants of the Union within the ambit of Lokpal without exception. However, we need to remember that the members of All India Services such as IAS, IPS and IFS stand exempted outside of the aforesaid 4 categories of employees covered under Central Civil Services. In fact, the chief instrument which has delineated group-wise classification of Central Civil Service employees into A, B, C and D Groups is the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the latter in its Rule-3 (Application) stipulates inter alia that it won't apply to 'any member of the All India Services.' In fact, the members of All India Services are regulated by altogether separate instruments in force, such as All India Services Act 1951 and All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Coming back to Section 23(4) of the Bill, we notice that even if we, going by the sub-clauses (e) and (f) its Section 14(1) allow for the coverage of civil services of the Union and States as referred under Article-311, to be brought under the investigating and prosecuting ambit of Lokpal, the case of All India Services is still left out there-from.
 
Further, the Bill in its Part-III (Lokayukta for a State) just in the manner of already referred Section 23(4) does also provide for protection to the civil servants including officers of All India Services from the jurisdiction of Lokayukta. The Section 84(4) occurring in Bill's Chapter-VII (Procedure in respect of Preliminary Enquiry and Investigation) brings out the exemption thus, "The provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution". 
 
Now that the real implications of a scrappy reference to Article 311 of Constitution occurring in the contexts of both Lokpal and Lokayukta have been laid bare, the other matter referred therein i.e. Article 320 (3)(c ) needs to be decoded of its real import too. It mandates that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted "on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters". It simply means that the Lokpal at Centre or the Lokayukta in a State can't advise the concerned public authority on the type of disciplinary action to be taken against a corrupt civil servant of Centre or State without having a consultation with the concerned UPSC or SPSU. Since the Bill doesn't mention any time-limit within which the Commissions shall tender their views in the matter, the task of prosecuting the guilty civil servant by the Lokpal or Lokayukta may hang fire to no end, as witnessed ever in the past.
 
It is ironical that with everybody from Team Anna to Parliament getting frenzied around 'lower bureaucracy', the shrewdly drafted official Bill shielded the topnotch bureaucracy from the ken of anti-corruption ombudsman altogether. So much so that you may now get a deviant sweeper punished through the route of CVC though, but you can't get a complaint against a corrupt Secretary or Commissioner enquired into by Lokpal or Lokayukta.
 
Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile- 9437577546, dt 31.122.2011