[RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC

Sir

I am merely placing before you certain material circulating (or being
circulated) in the public domain, and so that you can clear the
aspersions concerning your good name.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunan_Poshpora_incident
"Outraged over the government's handling of the situation, divisional
commissioner Wajahat Habibullah immediately resigned, and asked for
early retirement from the Indian Administrative Service.[8]"
(NB: the reference cited is the usually reliable New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D6163FF934A35757C0A967958260&n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/India)

2) The documents obtained by various persons (many of whom are on
this list) from DoPT/PMO etc show that there was great haste between
22.Oct.2009 and 24.Oct.2009 for ensuring that only the seniormost IC
would be considered as your successor. Since these were not obtained
by me I cannot disclose them on a public group like this. I have never
said that you recommended a successor (although Ms Maja Daruwala has
claimed that you recommended her name for the post) at the time (it
may have been a few days earlier). In any case there was a clear
consensus in the Commission that the seniormost IC be elevated as CCIC
as routine practice. The only confusion being about who that
seniormost IC was.

3) The point about Mr Tiwari (ie. the controversy about his relative
seniority) is a fact and also borne out by documents, which
inexplicably were leaked by the PMO in RTI despite the fact that they
were clearly marked as Secret / Confidential by the sender.

So the way I now understand it is

a) That you were offered the SCIC-ship of J&K.
b) That you conveyed this to Madam President offering to resign as
CCIC
c) That Madam President graciously declined your offer (the copy of
which is not available to anyone in RTI)
d) That you withdrew your resignation and carried on as CCIC and
retired in the normal course.

OTH
a) Ms Omita Paul sent her resignation to Secretary Personnel
b) That she took up her new job immediately
c) That the DoPT took legal opinion on what to do in her matter (which
relied exclusively on a SC judgment revolving around art 124 and
217 ), and after about a month the DoPT forwarded her letter of
resignation to Madam President for necessary (post facto) action.

Sarbajit

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