Tuesday, May 31, 2011

[HumJanenge] Fwd: Food for thought: Why Baba Ramdev really wants to starve




Pl. read the interesting Article in either of the links below followed by my comments on the same

http://tinyurl.com/4xnuqsv


OR

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/food-for-thought-why-baba-ramdev-really-wants-to-starve-18138.html?utm_source=ibnlive.com&utm_medium=RHS-Widget

My comments:

Anna and Ramdev phenomena seem to be opening up now. They look like a Corporate managed event to divert attention away from Corporate crimes in 2G scam, Radia tapes and variety of other modes of corruption to a seemingly worthless Jan Lokpal Bill. It is important to remember that till a few years ago Govt had the exclusive patented rights on corruption activities. Corporates were supposed to part with the bribe money or footing the wrong bill but intentionally not by mistake. But now Corporates seem to be the main actor in the drama.

We must stop for a minute to think and question how many laws, existing in this country, have helped this Nation to be in cleaner and purer form. None. Every law making exercise had all the by pass routes and alibis included in it while preparing to fight the next bout of corruption, crime, scams and unpopular methods of governance. So no hope from Anna and his Civil Society. The latter, anyway, are interested in funding - domestic or foreign. So they are not representing the larger interest of the population any way.    


--
डा वी एन शर्मा / Dr.V.N.Sharma
Cell No.9431102680,
Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE), 
Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad & 
Co-ordinator, Jharkhand Shanti evam Nyaya Yatra (JSNY)




--
डा वी एन शर्मा / Dr.V.N.Sharma
Cell No.9431102680,
Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE), 
Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad & 
Co-ordinator, Jharkhand Shanti evam Nyaya Yatra (JSNY)

[HumJanenge] Technology, transparency... event around Delhi...

Pls see
http://accountabilityindia.in/events/2239-technology-accountability-transparency-camp

FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 (after 2pm)
#784 Nr Lourdes Convent, Saligao 403511 Goa India
http://fn.goa-india.org http://goa1556.goa-india.org

Re: [HumJanenge] decision of communication ministry for withdrawing UPC service -

Ashutoshji,
We really appreciate all the written word and effort in this, as a common man what we clearly want to know is whether Essential services like postal, railways,air travel, which is financed by the respected Govt, and funded by OUR moneys, WHO is answerable for their REGULARITY.. please ask our iron lips friends in bureaucracy.
Thank You.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Ashutosh Kumar <ashucreative@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Anil Chamadia

The questions you put in on the RTI are really toothless. They cannot take out even a least bit of info from out iron lipped friends in bureaucracy.

You should instead ask for
1. Copy of minute of meetings in which the said service was discontinued
2. Name of all officials who took part in the said meeting and the suggestions made by them.
3. Name of those who proposed to discontinue the UPC service and copy of the documents siting reasons of such withdrawal.
4. Whether the postal department comes under consumer protection purview and a user of his services is duly entitled to get a receipt or not.

The question of receipt of using postal services is critical and it will guide you towards positive outcome. 

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM, anil chamadia <namwale@gmail.com> wrote:

Please oppose the decision of communication ministry for withdrawing old postal service -UPC

 

Dear friends,

I hope you will be aware of this decision that the Communication and Information ministry, Govt. of India, has withdrawn service of UPC (Under Posting Certificate) that was used mostly by poor sections of society. Now a days, the activists in the sphere of RTI were also using this old postal service extensively. Under this service, the consumers got a proof from the post office against the posting of their letters or documents at the same post office after paying just Rs 3.

 The consumer just pasted a postal stamp of worth Rs 3 (Three) on his own written address slip or paper   and the post office where the consumer posted their documents cancelled the stamp pasted on the address slip. Now this slip worked as a proof against the posting of the documents on the certain address. The address slip was valid up to three addresses.   In other words, the big advantage for the consumers was that they could have received a proof certificate simultaneously for three documents just paying the same amount of 3 Rs.

After withdrawal of this service I filed an RTI before Communication department in New Delhi asking for simple information that why the concerned department has discontinued the service of UPC and what were the disadvantages the department facing for continuing this service?

 But the department did not furnish this information properly. The department answered that the postal department used not to confirm the delivering of particular documents at the particular address after giving the receiving certificate.  It is here to clear that the purpose of UPC was to get a proof by the consumer against the posting of the documents at the certain address.

 In fact it was not for delivery proof. After all, the job of delivery is with the postal department.

  This step has been taken by the department in an arbitrary manner.  As we know that his service was being used by a million of people in a month countrywide.

But it is a matter of surprising that no political party or organization has came forward to oppose this move. It seems that postal department do not understand the importance of this service in this country with this fact that this service is mentioned in the 1935 act.

It seems that this step was taken to promote the courier services of private company.  Presently, any consumer has to pay more than twenty two rupees for registered post. An RTI activist had to pay maximum Rs 8 for using under posting certificate service. We feel that this move is an effort to curtail the rights  being exercised by RTI activists .

With regard

Anil chamadia



On 29 April 2011 22:19, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:


To

Mr.Anna Hazare,

Ralegan Siddhi,

Tal -Parner,

Ahmednagar,

Maharashtra, India.   

Ph- 91-02488-240401, 91 - 02488 - 240581
info@annahazare.org
, 
annahazare@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Sub: Request for drastic recast of Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2 in line with its original mandate- Resolution of the Second Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill held at Cuttack, Orissa by Progressive Lawyers Association on 26th April 2011

 

Esteemed Annaji,

 

Greetings from Progressive Lawyers Association!

Hopefully, you might have gone through and appreciated the Report of our first Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.1 held on 18th April 2011 at Cuttack, Orissa. In that report we have pointed out various omissions and commissions in the Jan Lokpal Bill proposed by India Against Corruption Team and called for its drastic overhaul in keeping with its original mandate.

 

Meanwhile the 2nd Seminar on the above subject was held on 26th April 2011 attended mostly by Advocates of Orissa High Court along with a section of social activists. In this Seminar we have located some more omissions and commissions, which are both serious and silly in nature in the Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2.    

 

While forwarding herewith the complete Report of the 2nd Seminar, we earnestly request you to kindly do the needful to address to the existing omissions and commissions in the draft Jan Lokpal Bill so as to provide for an effective and foolproof anti-corruption law covering both Centre and States.

A line in reply shall be highly appreciated.

With regards,

 

Kshirod Kumar Rout, Dt 29.4.2011

President, Progressive Lawyers Association 

D/917, Sector-6, CDA, Cuttack-14, Orissa 

Email: kshirodroutadv@gmail.com      

Mobile: 09937169865

 

Copy to: indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, info@indiaagainstcorruption.org,  

prashantbhush@gmail.com, Justice S.Hegde kla.kar@nic.in, agnivesh70@gmail.com , kiranbedioffice@gmail.com, Arvind Kejriwal parivartan@parivartan.com


Orissa lawyers for a drastic overhaul of Jan Lokpal Bill

Second Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill

Orgd. by Progressive Lawyers Association

at Basundhara, Cuttack, Orissa on 26th April 2011

 

After the first Seminar on Legal Aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill was held on 18th April by Progressive Lawyers Association, the 2nd one was held on 26th April at the same venue i.e. Basundhara, Bidanasi, Cuttack in the evening around 6.30 to 8.30 pm. The list of participants is appended hereto. It was presided over by Mr.Khirod Rout, Advocate Orissa High Court, President of the Association.

 

The President while declaring the Seminar open apprised the house that the proceedings of the first Seminar were mailed to Mr.Anna Hazare with a forwarding note on the need for amending the Draft Bill (version 2.1) and its copy circulated to Justice S.Hegde, India Against Corruption Team and also to such NAC members as Mrs.Sonia Gandhi Chairperson National Advisory Council and Mrs.Aruna Roy, Mr.Harsh Mander, and Dr.N.C.Saxena members of NAC among others. While some participants of the last Seminar were given the proceedings through mail others received it in hard copy.

 

Further the President informed that meanwhile version 2.2 has replaced the version 2.1  of Jan Lokpal Bill and requested the participants each to speak precisely and in reference to the provisions made in the latest version of Jan Lokpal Bill.

 

The first Speaker was Mr.Bibhu Prasad Nayak, Advocate Orissa High Court who strongly supported the ongoing move for an effective anti-corruption law in the shape of Jan Lokpal Act to act as a deterrent against the rampant corruption in every sphere of public life.

 

The next speaker Mr.Dipak Kumar Das, Advocate Orissa High Court pointed out some specific omissions and commissions in version 2.2 of Jan Lokpal Bill. In respect of Section 7 (Removal of Chairperson or members), he showed the following anomalies-

  

- The Section 6 (2)(b) says, "Any person, who was ever chargesheeted for any offence under IPC or PC Act or any other Act or was ever penalized under CCS Conduct Rules" shall not be eligible for appointment as Chairperson or Member of Lokpal. As is well known, there are many minor, petty, compoundable offenses covered under IPC and some other Acts, should can't be equated with seriousness of charges made under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. This provision should therefore restricted its reference only to PoC Act or conversely mentioned the specific provisions of IPC and other relevant Acts, the charge-sheeting under which shall render a person ineligible  for appointment for the above posts.  

 

- The Sub-section (5) of Section 6 (Appointment of the Chairman and Members) which provides for the composition of Selection Committee should have mentioned the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Charirman of Rajya Sabha as its members among others. Further, the provision for including 'two youngest Judges of Supreme Court' and 'two youngest Chief Justices of High Court' in the Selecion Committee needs clarification, especially for its reference to the words 'two youngest'.

- The Section 6(8) which provides for selection of members of Search Committee in its Clause (a)(a) says, "Any person who has had any substantive allegation of corruption against him" shall not be eligible for membership of the said Committee. The expression 'substantive allegation of corruption' needs to be defined. Further, the Section 6(8) in its Clause (a)(b) says,  "Any person who has either joined any political party after retirement or has had strong affiliations to any political party" shall not be eligible for membership of the said Committee. Here the expression "strong affiliations to any political party", in absence of a definition is likely to give rise to multiple interpretations and unwarranted ambiguities. 

 

- The Section 6(8) which provides for selection of members of Search Committee in its Clause (b) says, "The five members selected above shall nominate five members from civil society". The word 'civil society' being a too broad expression should be defined in the Bill, and the criteria to be followed for nomination of civil society members should also be specified.

 

- The Section 6(9)(c ) says, "The Search Committee shall invite recommendations from such class of people as it deems fit. The recommendations should, inter alia, contain the following details". One of such details as mentioned there-under is "his work against corruption in the past with documentary evidence". The expression 'documentary evidence' needs to be defined.  

 

- While Section 7 (3)(b)(iv) says that the Supreme Court shall directly, "if the grounds are proved, recommend to the President for removal of the said member or Chairperson", the Section 7(3)(h) says a different thing- "On receipt of a recommendation from the Supreme Court under clause (b)(iv) supra, the Prime Minister shall immediately recommend the removal of the member(s) or Chairperson of Lokpal to the President, who shall order the removal of the said member(s) or Chairperson within a month of receipt of the same".

- There is omission of Clause (c) and Clause (d) in Section 7(3). After Clause (b), there is abrupt mention of clause (e).

- Section 19A (Punishments for offences) mentions that for offenses committed under such instruments of law as "Chapter-III of Prevention of Corruption Act, the proviso to Section 2(4) of this Act and Section 28A of this Act shall not be less than one year of rigorous imprisonment and may extend upto life imprisonment". Then it is said, "Provided that the punishment shall be more severe if the accused is higher in rank". This proviso needs to be clarified with reference to words such as 'more severe' and 'higher in rank'. Further, the proviso to Section 2(4) says, "Provided that if any person obtains any benefit from the government by violating any laws or rules, that person along with the public servants who directly or indirectly helped that person obtain those benefits, shall be deemed to have indulged in corruption". This provision aiming at punishing the bribe-giver seems to be unwarranted, because a lot of people who don't want to pay any bribe to get their work done are often compelled to do so because the public servants don't do the works of the public without being bribed.

 

At this point President Mr.Kshirod Rout raised another issue in regard to the proviso under Section 2(4). He observed that if both bribe taking public servant and bribe giving common person are both punished as per Section 2(4), the common man who under the force of circumstances feels compelled to pay bribe, would never come forward to complain about the occurrence of bribery in the concerned public office, lest he would undergo the same punishment as would be meted out to the bribe taking public servant. In the end, no case of corruption would ever be reported to Lokpal.    

 

Advocate Mr. Das also raised the question whether necessary 'protection' has been provided to Lokpal under the Bill. To this query, Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera, Advocate clarified that Section-27 (Protection) ha been provided for the purpose in Jan Lokpal Bill.

 

The next speaker Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera, Advocate at the outset shared with the participants a heartening development that has taken place meanwhile since the first Seminar on Jan Lokpal Bill was held here itself on 18th April last. After deliberating on 2.1 version of JL Bill, the last Seminar had then arrived at a consensus that the civil society Bill instead of limiting its purview to Centre only, should have covered both Centre and States in keeping with the promise of the founding fathers of the Jan Lokpal Bill as an alternative to the Government proposed Bill that had a Centre-centric purview. Fortunately enough, the current 2.2 version of Jan Lokpal Bill carries a forwarding note that reads, "The following Bill has been drafted only for setting up an institution of Lokpal at the centre. We propose that in this same Bill, provisions on the same model may be made for setting up similar institution of Lokayukta in each state". While our purpose has been partially fulfilled, it would have been better if the preamble of the Bill would have been amended to read as follows, "An act to create effective anti-corruption and grievance redressal systems at Centre and in States so that effective deterrent is created against corruption and to provide effective protection to whistleblowers" and the relevant provisions in the text of the Bill recast accordingly.

 

Then Mr.Behera made a detailed presentation on his findings on the wide ranging exemptions allowed to different categories of public servants from the investigative and punitive purview of the Jan Lokpal Bill. Before proceeding further he cautioned the participants not to be subjectively judgmental in assessing the quality of this Bill but to assess its provisions objectively by the mandate which the founding fathers had themselves projected to be the rationale of the alternative Bill. Quoting from the briefs circulated by the www.indiaagainstcorruption.org along with the Jan Lokpal Bill, Mr.Behera mentioned 3 such mandates, namely; (1) a single, apex, independent and effective anti-corruption agency to be set up covering both Centre and States, and any complaint of corruption to be investigated and tried in a time bound manner so that a corrupt public servant, be he a politician, officer or judge be sent to jail within two years of the complaint so lodged, (2) A grievance redressal machinery to be set up to redress the grievance of any person within a month of the filing of his grievance relating to denial of any lawful entitlement besides penalizing the guilty official and paying the penalty amount as compensation to the deprived citizen, and (3) Immediate Protection to be provided to the anti-corruption whistle-blowers along with stern punishment to the concerned public servants who might have attacked, threatened or harmed in any manner the whistle blowers to fulfill their evil designs.

 

Now let us see how far Jan Lokpal Bill in its version 2.2 caters to the above mentioned promises. First of all, as already mentioned, the current Bill concerns itself with Cenre only, where only 10% of country's total corruption takes place, whereas as Justice Santosh Hegde observed a few days back, the common man is harassed by 90% of corruption taking place at the level of States across the country. Thus, sooner the Bill is made inclusive of both Centre and States, better for everybody. 

 

Secondly, the definition of 'Public Servant' as provided under Section 2(11) is not as inclusive as it should have been, since such constitutional authorities as President, Vice-President and Speaker of Lok Sabha are not covered there-under.

 

Thirdly, the proviso to Section 18 (8) says, "Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the Prime Minister". The Section-18 is captioned as 'Provisions relating to complaints and investigations'. Thus, going by the above proviso, no complaint can be lodged against the Prime Minister nor any enquiry or investigation made into his conduct.

 

Fourthly, the Section 18(8) says that even if the allegation of corruption against a Minister is substantiated and he should therefore not continue to hold that post, 'Lokpal shall make such recommendation to the President, who shall decide either to accept such recommendation or reject it within a month of its receipt". In case the President rejects the recommendation of Lokpal for removal of the concerned Minister, Lok Pal has no power to do anything about it.

 

Fifthly, as per Section 28B (2), "For an allegation against a Member of Parliament that he has taken a bribe for any conduct in Parliament, including voting in Parliament or raising question in Parliament or any other matter, a complaint could be made to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of Rajya Sabha, depending upon the House to which that member belongs". Then it is said that a complaint of such nature shall be forwarded to the Ethics Committee within a month of its receipt, and then "The Ethics Committee shall, within a month, decide whether to . .".  It is interesting to know that the last line is an incomplete sentence conveying no meaning as such. What is striking here above all is that there is no mention of the word Lok Pal in the entire provision. It clearly says that Lok Pal has no power to receive, let alone dispose of a complaint of corruption against a Member of Parliament in respect of his conduct in Parliament.

  

Sixthly, Section 18(iii) says, "The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation". It plainly means that the very alleged act of corruption by a public servant into which Lok Pal may be investigating, shall continue in force as before and that too with the unfettered involvement of all other concerned public servants.

 

Seventhly, in a similar vein Section 18(iv) says, "If, during the course of a preliminary inquiry or investigation under this Act, the Lokpal is prima facie satisfied that the allegation or grievance in respect of any action is likely to be sustained either wholly or partly, it may, through an interim order, recommend the public authority to stay the implementation or enforcement of the decision or action complained against, or to take such mandatory or preventive action, on such terms and conditions, as it may specify in its order to prevent further harm from taking place". Then it goes on to say, "The public authority shall either comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal under this sub-section within 15 days of receipt of such an order". If the concerned public authority rejects such recommendation, which is very much likely to happen, a nonplussed Lokpal, "if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority". Thus, any small or big public authority has been privileged with the discretion to reject Lok Pal's recommendation, and alternatively, once the case moves on to High Court at the instance of Lok Pal himself, there is no predictability about the time-limit or ultimate outcome of the case so lodged in the High Court, since either party, who might lose at the level of High Court, may move the Supreme Court to vindicate his position vis-à-vis that of the opposite party.     

 

Eighthly, the Bill's prvision is made such that Lok Pal's recommendation to a public authority to transfer or suspend any of its officer/employees held guilty prima facie can be defied by that authority with impunity. The Section 18(vi) says, "If during the course of investigation or enquiry into a complaint, the Lokpal feels that continuance of a public servant in that position could adversely affect the course of investigations or enquiry or that the said public servant is likely to destroy or tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses, the Lokpal may issue appropriate recommendations including transfer of that public servant from that position or his suspension, if he is a government servant. The public authority shall either comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal under this sub-section within 15 days of receipt of such an order. Lokpal, if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority". The implication of a helpless Lok Pal approaching the High Court to salvage the matter has already been dealt with above. Thus there would be a veritable scope legally available to the Government servant to manipulate the evidence and witness so as to influence final outcome of the investigation in his favour.

 

- Ninthly, the Jan Lokpal Bill in its Section 18(vii) says, "The Lokpal may, at any stage of inquiry or investigation under this Act, direct through an interim order, appropriate authorities to take such action as is necessary, pending inquiry or investigation.- (a) to safeguard wastage or damage of public property or public revenue by the administrative acts of the public servant; (b) to prevent further acts of misconduct by the public servant; (c ) to prevent the public servant from secreting the assets allegedly acquired by him by corrupt means." Then like in some previous instances, the public authority is privileged with the discretion to 'comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal . . . within 15 days of receipt of such an order'. In the event of rejection of such recommendation, Lokpal, as in earlier instances, 'if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority', thus leading to endless lingering of the case at different levels with the public servant being enabled to carry on his acts of misappropriation of public wealth, misconduct and stashing of black money in safe havens.

 

Tenthly, though Section -15 (Making a complaint to the Lokpal) in its sub-section (1) says inter alia that "any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lokpal", the sub-section (1) of Section 8 (Functions of Lokpal) provides no scope to Lokpal for receiving complaints against Judges or Minister/MPs.

 

Eleventh, though Section-16 (Matters which may be investigated by the Lokpal) provides sweeping power to Lokpal for investigating into any complaint made against any public servant, Section 17 (Matters not subject to investigation) in its sub-section (1) provides too many exceptions under which "the Lokpal shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in case of a grievance". As per this provision, those grievances of a complainant for which "any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or any other recourse before any authority provided in any other law and he has not availed of the same" shall not be investigated by the Lokpal. Again, if a complaint is under consideration by 'a judicial or quasi-judicial body' and the complainant can't prove malafides, it can't come under investigative purview of Lokpal. Then also, "If the substance of the entire grievance is pending before any court or quasi-judicial body of competent jurisdiction", it won't be investigated by the Lokpal. Lastly, another qualification, the meaning of which is not clearly comprehensible, also limits Lokpal's powers to investigative a public grievance- "any grievance where there is inordinate and inexplicable delay in agitating it".

 

President Mr.Kshirod Rout Advocate intervening in the discussion added that the sub-section (2) of Section 17 is another great factor constricting Lokpal's purview of investigation. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorising the Lokpal to investigate any action which is taken by or with the approval of the Presiding Officer of either House of Parliament". Thus not only any alleged act of corruption by the Speaker or Chairman of Rajya Sabha, but also that of any Minister, MP or official who are in the good book of Speaker or Chairman of Rajya Sabha shall enjoy immunity from the investigative scanner of Lokpal.  

   

Twelfth, continuing his talk Mr. Chitta Ranjan Behera Advocate observed that the parental mandate of redressing the grievance of a deprived or defrauded citizen within a month of the receipt of his complaint along with penalization of the guilty official and payment of the penalty amount to the harassed complainant by way of compensation has also been belied by the Jan Lokpal Bill version 2.2. Ironically, the Chapter titled 'Grievance Redressal Systems' which deals with the related provisions (Sections 21, 21A and 21B) doesn't provide for any space to Lokpal to receive or adjudicate any grievance of this sort at all. Instead, the procedure prescribed therein for the disposal of a grievance is multilayered, time killing and confusing to no end. Surprisingly there are two separate Sections (Annual Integrity Audit, and Allegations of Misconduct) bearing the identical Serial Number i.e. 21B. Let's now see how the multi-stage grievance redressal procedure is laid out in this Chapter. Firstly, Section 21(3) says, "Each public authority shall designate an official called Public Grievance Redressal Officer, whom a complainant should approach for any violation of the Citizens Charter". But Section 21A (1) says a different thing- "The Chief Vigilance Officer of any public authority shall declare such number of Vigilance Officers, as it deems fit, to be known as Appellate Grievance Officers, to receive and dispose grievances related to that public authority". Then again, Section 21A (2) announces a new position saying, "If a citizen fails to receive satisfactory redressal to his grievance within a month of making a complaint to Public Grievance Redressal Officer, can make a complaint to Appellate Grievance Officer". Next, it is true, the Section 21A (3) prescribes a duration of one month from the date of the receipt of the complaint, within which the Appellate Grievance Officer shall dispose of the grievance, but peculiarly enough, if it relates to an issue falling outside the Citizens' Charter. The Section 21 A (4) defines 'vigilance angle' and the next provision Section 21A (5) endows the Appellate Grievance Officer with the power to penalize a guilty officer with a fine at the rate of Rs.250/- per day for the entire period of delay in delivering the unjustly withheld entitlement to the aggrieved person and compensate the aggrieved complainant with the penalty amount so realized. But the time limit within which the Appellate Grievance Officer shall pronounce his decision on the grievances relating to Citizens' Charter, which is in fact a crucial element in the whole matter, is not clear at all from these provisions. Further, the Section 21A (6) provides for penalties against the guilty officers under the CCS Conduct Rules, thereby leaving out the Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS from the ken of penal action by Lokpal.    

 

Now let us see what kind of endless, multi-layered, labyrinthine appellate process the aggrieved citizen is made to pass through in search of elusive justice. As per Clause (1) of Section 21C the Vigilance Officer, otherwise known as Appellate Grievance Officer "shall conduct an enquiry into each case within 3 months of its receipt and present its report to the Chief Vigilance Officer". Mind it, prior to this, the complainant must have passed through one month of appeal before the concerned Public Grievance Officer as per the earlier referred Section 21A(2). The Clause (2) of Section 21C says, "Within a fortnight of receipt of report, the Chief Vigilance Officer shall constitute a three member bench of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officers other than the one who conducted enquiry at clause (1) above". Then, the Clause (3) and Clause (4) read together provide that the said Bench shall hold a summary hearing of the vigilance officer who conducted enquiry, the complainant and the guilty officers and pass an order 'within a month of the constitution of the bench' 'imposing one or more of the minor or major penalties on the accused government servants', "provided that such order shall be in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate appointing authority". However, the matter is not finished there. The Clause (5) says, "An appeal shall lie against the order of the bench before the Chief Vigilance officer, who shall pass an order within a month of receipt of appeal, after giving reasonable opportunity to the accused, the complainant and the vigilance officer who conducted enquiries". It is to be noted here that the said appeal before the CVO can be lodged by anyone of the 3 parties including accused officers and vigilance officer to reverse the decision on penalty made by the bench.      

 

To recapitulate, the PGRO shall take one month, followed by Appellate Grievance Officer who shall take 3 months to enquire and report to the CVO, then by CVO who shall take half a month to constitute the Bench for summary hearing, by the Bench which shall take a month to pass its orders, and then by the CVO who shall take one month to dispose of the appeal. Thus the whole process for disposal of a single grievance shall take at least six and half months, and then again there is also no guarantee that the concerned public authority shall execute the order of CVC, since it is not mandatory but recommendatory in nature. Just contrast this weird provision with the tantalizing promise, "you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time".

 

Mr.Behera summed up his talk with the observation that the draft Jan Lokpal Bill in its present avatar is worse than its official counterpart. and if enacted shall further widen the floodgate of corruption in the country. The civil society in whose name this draft Bill has ironically been bloated out of proportions has the moral obligation to tailor it to the pristine mission that had triggered off the exercise in scripting an alternative to the official bill.       

 

Following the deliberation by Mr.Behera, the President Mr.Kshirod Rout placed his concluding remarks. He suggested that as in the case of previous Seminar, the proceedings of this Seminar pointing out a fresh series of omissions and commissions in the Draft Jan Lokpal Bill shall be mailed to Mr.Anna Hajare and other concerned persons associated with the drafting of Jan Lokpal Bill. The date and venue of the next Seminar on the legal aspects of Jan Lokpal Bill shall be intimated soon. Mr.Baasant Kumar Prusty Advocate Orissa High Court moved a vote of thanks to the chair, speakers and participants, who all made the Seminar a success. He also thanked Basundhara for having facilitated the logistics of the Seminar and Mrs.Saila Behera Secretary Basundhara for her keen participation in the proceedings of the Seminar. 

    

 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

 

Mr.Khirod Rout, Advocate                                     President

Mr.Chitta Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate                    Speaker

Mr.Asit Kumar Jena, Advocate                              

Mr.Subha Bikash Panda Advocate                          Speaker

Mr.Dipak Kumar Dash, Advocate                           Speaker

Mr.Tushar Kanta Nayak Advocate

Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera, Advocate                        Speaker

Mr.Bikash Mohanty, Advocate

Mr. Ramesh Sahoo, Advocate

Mrs.Rini Mohanty, Basundhara

Mr.Harihar Nayak, Basundhara

Mr.Raj Kishore Singh, Social activist

Mrs. Saila Behera, Secretary Basundhra                  Speaker

Mr.Chitta Ranjan Nanda, Advocate

Mr. Bhramarbar Sahu, Trade Unionist

Mr.Bibhu Prsaad Nayak, Advocate                         Speaker

Mr.Basant Kumar Prusty, Advocate                       Vote of thanks

Mr.Sailendu Ghosh, Social Worker                                 

Dr.Prashant Kumar Mishra, Advocate                             

Mr.Prashant Paltasingh 

Mr.Giridhari Nayak, Basundhara

Mr.Akshay Kumar Swain, Basundhara

Mr.Subhasis Patnaik                                                                                                                

 






--
Anil Chamadia
09868456745
09503834595



--
Regards

Ashutosh Kumar
9971063244




Monday, May 30, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING

Good Decision.

--- On Tue, 31/5/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
To: "HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, 31 May, 2011, 9:13 AM

Dear All

Please be informed that from TOMORROW - 1 June 2011 - any member who
posts emails here which is not significantly connected with RTI (Right
to Information) or which is clearly marked as OFF-TOPIC will be
unsubscribed from this group without warning.

Thereafter, the moderators shall revert this group to UNMODERATED
status.

Baba Ramdev is not a member of this group, nor does he have any
significant known connection with RTI.

Sarbajit

On May 29, 7:04 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I agree with Shri Jam. Month of June will be humming with activities till the fast of Baba Ram Devl ji takes a logical conclusion. 
> Closing the eyes with the happeining around us is not wise and we cannot afford that too.
>  
> "Waqt ke badlav se jo khabardaar nahin hai, wo kuch aur hi hogo lekin samazdaar nahin." hai.
>
> --- On Sun, 29/5/11, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 29 May, 2011, 6:00 AM
>
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> In fact in June, the Moderators should be more vigilant.
> Remember that "Baba" is going on a fast against corruption from 04 June - 
> you can certainly expect more off topic messages !
> Suggest you postpone this decision till July.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 7:56 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
>
> From 1 June 2011, this group will once again be esentially unmoderated. The only tool moderaors will use is to a) "gag" members from posting or b) ""kick out" members from the group.
>
> My huimble request to everyone is to confine ourselves to discussing RTI on this group and not post unneccessarily. 
>
> Occassionally our group members may decide to post something of interest to a large section of the group which is not directly concerned with RTI. This is OK as long as it is clearly marked "OT" or "OFF-TOPIC" in the message subject or there is some other clear indication that the author is requesting the indulgence of group members / moderators..
>
> For ready reference the group's regulations can be read here
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/353ac8...
>
> Sarbajit

[HumJanenge] Re: IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING

Dear All

Please be informed that from TOMORROW - 1 June 2011 - any member who
posts emails here which is not significantly connected with RTI (Right
to Information) or which is clearly marked as OFF-TOPIC will be
unsubscribed from this group without warning.

Thereafter, the moderators shall revert this group to UNMODERATED
status.

Baba Ramdev is not a member of this group, nor does he have any
significant known connection with RTI.

Sarbajit

On May 29, 7:04 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I agree with Shri Jam. Month of June will be humming with activities till the fast of Baba Ram Devl ji takes a logical conclusion. 
> Closing the eyes with the happeining around us is not wise and we cannot afford that too.
>  
> "Waqt ke badlav se jo khabardaar nahin hai, wo kuch aur hi hogo lekin samazdaar nahin." hai.
>
> --- On Sun, 29/5/11, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 29 May, 2011, 6:00 AM
>
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> In fact in June, the Moderators should be more vigilant.
> Remember that "Baba" is going on a fast against corruption from 04 June - 
> you can certainly expect more off topic messages !
> Suggest you postpone this decision till July.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 7:56 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] IMPORTANT GROUP MESSAGE - WARNING
>
> From 1 June 2011, this group will once again be esentially unmoderated. The only tool moderaors will use is to a) "gag" members from posting or b) ""kick out" members from the group.
>
> My huimble request to everyone is to confine ourselves to discussing RTI on this group and not post unneccessarily. 
>
> Occassionally our group members may decide to post something of interest to a large section of the group which is not directly concerned with RTI. This is OK as long as it is clearly marked "OT" or "OFF-TOPIC" in the message subject or there is some other clear indication that the author is requesting the indulgence of group members / moderators..
>
> For ready reference the group's regulations can be read here
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/353ac8...
>
> Sarbajit

[HumJanenge] Mr. Jagadanand, Orissa Information Commissioner working at tandem with defaulter PIOs and corrupt public authorities

Mr. Jagadanand, Orissa Information Commissioner working at tandem with defaulter PIOs and corrupt public authorities

 Dear friends,

Under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Right to Information Act, the Central/ State Information Commissioners are empowered  to hear the complaints/second appeals and to give justice  to the aggrieved citizens by way of ensuring  complete information, and imposition of penalty  in the form of fine or  disciplinary proceedings against defaulting PIO. 

 

But here is a case where the State Information Commissioner Mr.Jagadanand has conspicuously failed to carry out the above provisions and to deliver justice to the RTI complainant .

 

Shocked by the media report of large scale corruption and irregularities in distribution of PDS, MDM and ICDS items in areas under BMC  I had on 21.8..2009 submitted 3 RTI Applications to the PIO, office of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation seeking certain  information about implementation of food security programmes like PDS, MDM and ICDS in areas under BMC including slums like Patharbandh Basti and Ganapati Basti. Having received no information, I made 3 complaints to Orissa Information Commission under Section 18 of RTI Act on 3.10.2009. These complaints were were registered as CC No-1030/2009, CC No- 1033/2009 and CC No-1017/2009. 

 

After a long span of around 14 months, Mr. Jagadanand, SIC took up on 3.12.2010,the hearing of all 3 complaint petitions On this day, the Commission directed the PIO to forward the concerned RTI Application to the concerned public authorities to furnish the requisite information. The PIO was also directed to furnish the said information free of cost to the complainant and the Commission fixed 18.1.2011 for further hearing.

 

On the day of second hearing, I appeared and stated that PIO had not provided me with complete Information. Hearing the case, Mr. Jagadanand asked me to prepare a discrepancy chart and furnish the same before the concerned PIOs who should in turn provide the complete information accordingly. Mr. Jagadanad also said that in case of my failure in getting the complete information, I could keep the Commission informed  so to reopen and rehear the case. He also directed ADM, Bhubaneswar to ensure furnishing of complete information to the complainant from the office of the Asst. Civil Supplies Officer as well as the CDPO, ICDS (Urban). Thus  the case was of by Mr.Jagadanand.

 

Following the advice of the Commission,  I sent  on 22.1.2011 a discrepancy chart  to the Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, office of ADM, Bhubaneswar  seeking complete information along with a copy marked to  the Commission. After expiry of a moth, i.e. on 23.2.2011 I received  a letter from the Asst. Civil Supplies Officer, BMC who expressed his inability  therein to furnish  the requisite information.

 

Then,  on 14.3.2011, I wrote to Mr. Jagadanand, SIC  requesting  to reopen the case for  another around of hearing   and take action against the concerned defaulting PIO under Section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Besides I also wrote to the Chief Information Commissioner Orissa requesting him to direct Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand to reopen the case.

 

Though two months have passed by meanwhile, I couldn't get any response from Mr. Jagadanand, SIC  nor did I get any further information. However, after around more than 3 months i.e. on 30.4.2011 I got a copy of the decision  on all of my complaint petitions disposed by  the Commission where it was written  in para-8 that " the Complainant is at liberty  to prefer petition afresh before the State Commission, in case the grievance still remains unsettled at the level of opposite party".  But, it is to be noted that  in the earlier decision of the Commission I was asked  to inform the Commission to reopen the case, but not to file  another petition.   It is strange the Commission has failed to maintain consistency between two decisions pronounced by it with a time gap- all this to the detriment of the RTI user and to the advantage of the defaulter PIO and corrupt public authorities.   

Regards

 

Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date- 30.5.2011

Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER

Unfortunate but a reality .

The Country is inviting a fresh revolution....a struggle......for real democracy.

Regards,
Kamal Shah

--- On Sun, 29/5/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 29 May, 2011, 3:20 PM

This is the first reaction which I received on this blog and that is shocking.  Anyway, I have not given up my fight against deliberately registration of false FIR claiming that the file was lost and false affidavits by the CPIO to this effect.

--- On Sun, 29/5/11, sushil kumar <drsushilkumar@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: sushil kumar <drsushilkumar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 29 May, 2011, 7:40 AM

Dear Shri MK Gupta,

Its a corrupt , corrupt and corrupt world.

In this world the corrupt survive, prosper and are adored.

No one will sing for a man in trouble, no one will side with a man in trouble, no one higher or junior will like to be seen as the fried of the one in trouble.

By writing  about your case you may get some smug satisfaction that its on the net and others have read about it. No one will ever take up your case he may be even Hazare, Kejriwal or Kiran. 

Why I write to you is that even I was a Whistle blower of financial irregularity in an Organisation whose Director I was. I had assisted the CAG of India in unearthing massive financial irregularity.  I whistle blew the  financial irregularities to the CVC of India. Bold step many may say.  

But what I got sudden suspension which continued for three and a half years. It ended only because the High Court quashed it as also the charge sheet on grounds of mala fides.

The story is long and boring.

The end result I was compulsorily retired as a major penalty cause of an ex parte Enquiry conducted by a retired judge of High Court who was paid almost Rs Five Lakhs. The charge sheet contained the same verbatim charges which had been quashed by the Court on grounds of mala fides , issued and signed by a Deputy Director of mine who had no statutory powers....... why bore you sir.

I approached the High Court  before even the Order of my compulsory retirement was passed but till now there has been no notice issued.

The Minister in charge is swayed by the vote banks, The CVC is only advisory. The CAG can not do anything.  All those whom you helped are scared to talk to you.

Moral : Do not fight corruption let dogs have the party and the feast. 
            Every dog has his day ( but you aren't a dog)
 
PS> Thanks . Incidentally I used your case CIC Ruling that the information can not be denied on the pretext of matter being sub judice but there they did not reply. I guess you can not fight dogs unless you are dog yourself and have a horde of dogs to side you in the hope of the feast.

 

--- On Wed, 25/5/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 9:53 PM

AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER

 

M K Gupta, RTI volunteer

 

We have read about the murders of RTI volunteers for fighting against the corruption but there have been many cases wherein volunteers have to lose their jobs also.  In one such case of M K Gupta, it was alleged against him, "Actually, his bonafide are (sic) doubtful.  Hence such a persons (sic) cannot be put on duty."  He was removed from the job in April, 2008 on the aforesaid charge along with some other trivial charges.

 

When confronted and asked to substantiate the charge, Shri D.K. Das, CPIO, (now retd.) NSD, All India Radio pleaded that the file has been lost and therefore the charges cannot he substantiated. The CPIO went to the extent of writing false letter, registering false FIR apart from submitting three false affidavits before the Central Information Commission declaring that the file has been lost.

 

On the order of CIC, matter was inquired and as per finding, Shri Gita Ram, Sr. Administrative Officer and present CPIO concluded,  "……….. Hence it can be construed that no file was created." When no file was created, where was the question of its being lost? In his report and affidavit to the CIC, present CPIO has said that all the records are available in the office.

 

The struggle against corruption and transprancy in government's working by the RTI volunteers is not an easy one but the firm resolve of Gupta has exposed the injustice met to him.


 

Sunday, May 29, 2011

[HumJanenge] Big companies paying bribe OR MAMUL every year to Congress in the way donation in own name or sister concern

I got income returns and Balance sheet for past 10 years of Indian national Congress (INC). In balance sheet i came to know that every year very big companies like ITC, Videcon, Torrent,  (soon i will release list of companies, educational trust, PROMOTERS, individuals giving donation amount, date, mode of amount)   are giving several crores of ruppess to INC directly through company name or sisters company name. Most of big companies through sisters concerned or NGO runing by the company. some of company running own NGO in name of ELECTION REFORM.  
1. What is the reason for giving donation every year several Crores to INC by big companies?
2. whether INC collecting as bribe or mammul  from the big companies every year?
3. Why some of educational Trust giving donation to INC? to keep silent about capitation fee?
4. Why same company giving donation more than one time(twice or thrice) in the same year in different dates? whether we can consider as final deal amount?
5. why INC not shown (in balance sheet)all of the PAN of company, individuals, educational trust, etc., given donation to  them. 
5. why INC has given Rs.5.80 crores unsecurred loan to Journal in year 2001? 
FINAL HOW INC OR POLITICAL WILL TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THEM IF THERE VIOLATION, DEVIVATION IN COMPANY, ETC.,

V.Gopalakrishnan

[HumJanenge] Re: HumJanenge Group's Regulations

Dear Sirs,

We have lodged the complaint against some of the public
authority for gross misappropriation of public money with CVO,however
we do not get the proper action as per the provisions of the law,then
we are planning to approach the Hon,ble Guwahati High Court.So kindly
furnish us the list of the advocates who support the RTI Activist in
Guwahati High Court please.

Thank you

B.Ama

On May 15, 2:21 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Hari-ji
>
> It is a moot point if Mr Vishal is the moderator of this HumJanenge group or
> not.
> You may rest assured however that all moderators of this group (including
> myself) fully intend to strengthen RTI Act and RTI movement and fight all
> attempts to render it weak and toothless.
>
> Hum Janenge - google groups IS very much a FIGHTING group for RTI. This is
> reinforced by the amount of fighting we indulge in between ourselves here.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Hari Goyal <haridgo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >  Dear Mr. Vishal,
>
> >  It is a good message for RTI activists. Some members' language and their
> > conduct has failed this group/Forum to gain strength it deserves. Let it
> > emerge a
> >  fighting group against those  want to make RTI Act and movement very weak
> > one.
>
> >  Would you please bring out the list of Delhi advocates - honest
> > professionals (not making themselves saleable commodities; as I have bitter
> > experience of deception in the hands of two advocates who after taking full
> > fee suddenly refused to appear in the court  and also refused to give me
> > back my files) ) and experts on RTI matters as I want to file two cases in
> > DELHI HIGH Court?  This will be service in the cause of RTI Act.
>
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> > Hari Goyal
> > 011-25082239
>
> > ------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 09:21:46 +0530
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge Group's Regulations
> > From: humjanenge.ow...@gmail.com
> > To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> > *GROUP REGULATIONS*
> > Please read the following group regulations carefully, *these regulations
> > are enforced strictly and without discrimination*
>
> > *1) MESSAGE POSTS*
>
> >    - *a)* Message posts to be directly relevant to RTI / Right to
> >    Information. The focus is on RTI in general and not on specific instances
> >    affecting an individual member. The prime focus is on discussion of gray
> >    areas of the RTI Act 2005.
> >    - *b)* No abusive language to be used in message posts
> >    - *c)* No "Cross-Posting" (multiple copies of the same message from /
> >    to other egroups)
> >    - *d)* All posts in English language only (or with accurate
> >    translation)
> >    - *e)* No communal, sexist, racial, casteist etc message posts
> >    - *f)* Fostering  brotherly feeling among RTI activists all over India
> >    and organizing concerted action through message posts.
> >    - *g)* Posting of "news" reports on RTI by simply copy-pasting is
> >    banned. This is also a copyright violation issue which we (and googlegroups)
> >    take seriously. If a news report is important, post your views / concerns
> >    with  the LINK to the article.
> >    - *h)* Posts to be kept short and focussed. Long scholarly arguments
> >    are  strongly discouraged.
> >    - *i)* Posts in reply to be trimmed (by deleting the previous post so
> >    that only relevant portions which are at issue to be retained).
> >    - *j)* Self publicity or publicity for NGOs (and their programs) is
> >    strictly prohibited.
> >    - *k)* Address message posts to the group (and not to individual
> >    members)
> >    - *l)* SPAM (spammers, and spam harvesters) is not tolerated.
>
> > *2) FREQUENCY OF POSTING *
>
> >    - *a)* This group shall strive to limit itself to 300 messages per
> >    month. The list owner is empowered to take all steps necessary to achieve
> >    this.
> >    - *b)* Of these 150 message are reserved to the list owner and about 10
> >    "guru" members who shall be invited to assist the list owner. The list of
> >    "guru" members shall be widely publicised and updated from time to time
> >    - *c)* Other members are allowed to post upto 3 messages per day (24
> >    hours approx) and 10 messages per month.
> >    - *d)* Members are requested to limit / control the frequency of their
> >    posts to this list and avoid personality based squabbles on this group.
> >    - *e)* Please try to combine reply posts, and avoid the temptation of
> >    replying to posts immediately.
>
> > *PMK*
> > List Owner- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[HumJanenge] RTI ACTIVIST TO USA _ KINDLY READ LINK

Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER

This is the first reaction which I received on this blog and that is shocking.  Anyway, I have not given up my fight against deliberately registration of false FIR claiming that the file was lost and false affidavits by the CPIO to this effect.

--- On Sun, 29/5/11, sushil kumar <drsushilkumar@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: sushil kumar <drsushilkumar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 29 May, 2011, 7:40 AM

Dear Shri MK Gupta,

Its a corrupt , corrupt and corrupt world.

In this world the corrupt survive, prosper and are adored.

No one will sing for a man in trouble, no one will side with a man in trouble, no one higher or junior will like to be seen as the fried of the one in trouble.

By writing  about your case you may get some smug satisfaction that its on the net and others have read about it. No one will ever take up your case he may be even Hazare, Kejriwal or Kiran. 

Why I write to you is that even I was a Whistle blower of financial irregularity in an Organisation whose Director I was. I had assisted the CAG of India in unearthing massive financial irregularity.  I whistle blew the  financial irregularities to the CVC of India. Bold step many may say.  

But what I got sudden suspension which continued for three and a half years. It ended only because the High Court quashed it as also the charge sheet on grounds of mala fides.

The story is long and boring.

The end result I was compulsorily retired as a major penalty cause of an ex parte Enquiry conducted by a retired judge of High Court who was paid almost Rs Five Lakhs. The charge sheet contained the same verbatim charges which had been quashed by the Court on grounds of mala fides , issued and signed by a Deputy Director of mine who had no statutory powers....... why bore you sir.

I approached the High Court  before even the Order of my compulsory retirement was passed but till now there has been no notice issued.

The Minister in charge is swayed by the vote banks, The CVC is only advisory. The CAG can not do anything.  All those whom you helped are scared to talk to you.

Moral : Do not fight corruption let dogs have the party and the feast. 
            Every dog has his day ( but you aren't a dog)
 
PS> Thanks . Incidentally I used your case CIC Ruling that the information can not be denied on the pretext of matter being sub judice but there they did not reply. I guess you can not fight dogs unless you are dog yourself and have a horde of dogs to side you in the hope of the feast.

 

--- On Wed, 25/5/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 9:53 PM

AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER

 

M K Gupta, RTI volunteer

 

We have read about the murders of RTI volunteers for fighting against the corruption but there have been many cases wherein volunteers have to lose their jobs also.  In one such case of M K Gupta, it was alleged against him, "Actually, his bonafide are (sic) doubtful.  Hence such a persons (sic) cannot be put on duty."  He was removed from the job in April, 2008 on the aforesaid charge along with some other trivial charges.

 

When confronted and asked to substantiate the charge, Shri D.K. Das, CPIO, (now retd.) NSD, All India Radio pleaded that the file has been lost and therefore the charges cannot he substantiated. The CPIO went to the extent of writing false letter, registering false FIR apart from submitting three false affidavits before the Central Information Commission declaring that the file has been lost.

 

On the order of CIC, matter was inquired and as per finding, Shri Gita Ram, Sr. Administrative Officer and present CPIO concluded,  "……….. Hence it can be construed that no file was created." When no file was created, where was the question of its being lost? In his report and affidavit to the CIC, present CPIO has said that all the records are available in the office.

 

The struggle against corruption and transprancy in government's working by the RTI volunteers is not an easy one but the firm resolve of Gupta has exposed the injustice met to him.


 

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER

Dear Shri MK Gupta,

Its a corrupt , corrupt and corrupt world.

In this world the corrupt survive, prosper and are adored.

No one will sing for a man in trouble, no one will side with a man in trouble, no one higher or junior will like to be seen as the fried of the one in trouble.

By writing  about your case you may get some smug satisfaction that its on the net and others have read about it. No one will ever take up your case he may be even Hazare, Kejriwal or Kiran. 

Why I write to you is that even I was a Whistle blower of financial irregularity in an Organisation whose Director I was. I had assisted the CAG of India in unearthing massive financial irregularity.  I whistle blew the  financial irregularities to the CVC of India. Bold step many may say.  

But what I got sudden suspension which continued for three and a half years. It ended only because the High Court quashed it as also the charge sheet on grounds of mala fides.

The story is long and boring.

The end result I was compulsorily retired as a major penalty cause of an ex parte Enquiry conducted by a retired judge of High Court who was paid almost Rs Five Lakhs. The charge sheet contained the same verbatim charges which had been quashed by the Court on grounds of mala fides , issued and signed by a Deputy Director of mine who had no statutory powers....... why bore you sir.

I approached the High Court  before even the Order of my compulsory retirement was passed but till now there has been no notice issued.

The Minister in charge is swayed by the vote banks, The CVC is only advisory. The CAG can not do anything.  All those whom you helped are scared to talk to you.

Moral : Do not fight corruption let dogs have the party and the feast. 
            Every dog has his day ( but you aren't a dog)
 
PS> Thanks . Incidentally I used your case CIC Ruling that the information can not be denied on the pretext of matter being sub judice but there they did not reply. I guess you can not fight dogs unless you are dog yourself and have a horde of dogs to side you in the hope of the feast.

 

--- On Wed, 25/5/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 9:53 PM

AT LAST, TRUTH TRUMPHS – VICTIMAZATION OF RTI VOLUNTEER

 

M K Gupta, RTI volunteer

 

We have read about the murders of RTI volunteers for fighting against the corruption but there have been many cases wherein volunteers have to lose their jobs also.  In one such case of M K Gupta, it was alleged against him, "Actually, his bonafide are (sic) doubtful.  Hence such a persons (sic) cannot be put on duty."  He was removed from the job in April, 2008 on the aforesaid charge along with some other trivial charges.

 

When confronted and asked to substantiate the charge, Shri D.K. Das, CPIO, (now retd.) NSD, All India Radio pleaded that the file has been lost and therefore the charges cannot he substantiated. The CPIO went to the extent of writing false letter, registering false FIR apart from submitting three false affidavits before the Central Information Commission declaring that the file has been lost.

 

On the order of CIC, matter was inquired and as per finding, Shri Gita Ram, Sr. Administrative Officer and present CPIO concluded,  "……….. Hence it can be construed that no file was created." When no file was created, where was the question of its being lost? In his report and affidavit to the CIC, present CPIO has said that all the records are available in the office.

 

The struggle against corruption and transprancy in government's working by the RTI volunteers is not an easy one but the firm resolve of Gupta has exposed the injustice met to him.