Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

Dear Guptaji

Further to my previous email

1) Attached here is a PDF file of a webpage. The young lady (Gitanjali
Balakrishna) who interned under SG proudly describes (in her LinkedIn
CV) how she drafted decisions for IC(SG). Many members on this group
can confirm what I saw with my own eyes of SG's style -
Interns/Consultants have prepared the order in advance. Only the last
3 or 4 lines are personally typed in / dictated by SG - who often gave
a printout on the spot (along with a consolatory cup of Nescafe tea /
coffee). SG simply refuses to take arguments which run contrary to
what has been pre-prepared for him. In effect 20 year old girls like
Gitanjali, Shibani Ghosh etc were running SG's office - hardly what
the RTI Act envisages.

2) I also refer you to an old post of mine on HJ dated 30.12.2011
addressed to CIC(SM) concerning a case where IC(SG) (or the private
consultants WHO SG MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR) had contracted to
penalise 2 junior "deemed PIOs" (instead of the actual offenders) in
UT(A&N) Admin. The case no. is CIC/SG/A/2011/002839 . Can Mr SG
explain why there is no order in this case on the CIC website after my
complaint to CIC(SM).

For the record

A) After I complained about SG's "cash for FIRs" scam, he stopped
B) After I complained about SG's "penalise deemed PIOs" racket he
stopped (for some time).

Sarbajit


On 7/21/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> These are very serious charges and prima facie evidence about these should
> be provided.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005"
> records IC(SG)
>
> Dear Mr Mittal
>
> If you go through the CIC's old minutes of meetings, you would find
> somewhere that Shailesh Gandhi assumed the responsibility of
> digitising the entire CIC. I'm sure that you would recall that prior
> to his becoming IC, Mr SG had been constantly promoting digitisation
> as the universal panacea to solve all the CIC's ills. The reason why
> digitisation has slowed down is precisely because of the poor example
> SG's own digitisation had set. Let me recount a few of these.
>
> 1) Private interns paid for from SG's own funds taking home scanned files.
>
> 2) Private RTI consultants being provided scanned copies of plaints
> pending before SG, draft orders being prepared in consultation with
> P/As prior to hearings so that SG would only have to "fill in the
> blanks" by looking at his computer screen during hearings etc.
>
> 3) Pen drives / CDs full of information obtained by Mr SG being given
> free of cost to Mr SG's NCPRI pals.
>
> and so on
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 7/21/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Roy,
>>
>> It is wrong to say that Ex IC SG was responsible for digitising
>> the CIC. He can be responsible for his own registry, which he has
>> converted
>> into paperless office.
>>
>> In fact, he has been pushing the digitising the entire
>> commission, which has now been stopped in most registries.
>>
>> I know you love to blame SG for everything wrong happening with
>> RTI in India, but please make your arguments laced with little bit of
>> facts...
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Girish Mittal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
>> CPIO & Director
>> Central Information Commission
>>
>> "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
>> the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
>> number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
>> lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
>> properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
>> states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
>> there are no other instances which have been reported to the
>> Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
>> commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
>> not lost and recorded properly."
>>
>> Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
>> Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
>> Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
>> the CIC's records.
>>