9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s :- 1. Copy of the complaint and inquiry report thereon. 2. Name of the Inquiry Officer and all the persons who gave adverse comments against me along with copy of their comments. 3. Copy of the provisions under which inquiry can be conducted without giving opportunity of hearing to the person complained against. Which provision was applied in my case. (Note : As per order of DG(Vig) discreet inquiry was conducted in my case and as per your order dated 17-1-2006 such inquiry can be conducted under the provision of Vigilance Manual. I be given the copy of all provisions in complete way) 4. Inspection of the file under which inquiry was conducted. 3. This information was sought on the basis of the CPIO s l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which seems to drive him to unmask those who allegedly conspired against him. There is also a certain sense of helplessness which stems from a feeling, that despite a favourable, strongly worded Court order, he cannot know as to who the people were who were allegedly used the tool of a discreet enquiry to inflict on him, what he considers, humiliation and mental agony. His passion seems to be of a man wronged. 9. This being so, the request of the appellant will have to be examined strictly in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, and this is where he loses out. The AA and the CPIO have rightly judged that disclosing names of Enquiry Officers (EO) and those assisting in the enquiry by providing evidence is barred by the exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s transfer was quashed by the High Court, who passed severe strictures and impeached the bona fides of the decision to transfer him. The Court decision and the language employed in giving that decision lend credence to the allusion that the appellant was wronged. This also brings up an equally important issue of governance? when acknowledgedly there is unfair decision making, should those, whose actions led to such decision being made, still enjoy the protection of Section 8(1)(g). In my view, the answer is NO . Once the unfairness of a decision is established, the victim of such decision is entitled to know as to who all participated in its making. Allowing the veil of anonymity to prevent disclosure of their identities is counter to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
