CIC/SA/A/2015/000802 and CIC/SA/A/2015/000847. Case: Avinash Kumar Vs Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, GNCTD. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | CIC/SA/A/2015/000802 and CIC/SA/A/2015/000847 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: M.S. Premi, AO/PIO and Ajeet Tyagi |
| Judges | M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 11, 4, 5; Right To Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(g) |
| Judgement Date | August 06, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner 1. The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. M.S. Premi, AO/PIO, Mr. Ajeet Tyagi. Background CIC/SA/A/2015/000847 2. Contentions of Appellant: Appellant is a specialist doctor in General Medicine. In addition to his regular service to patients, he was given responsibility as purchase officer on 15.2.2013. The purchase committee of the Hospital has taken unanimous decision at a meeting held on 16.3.2013 to purchase the photocopier machine model 5002SP. There was no dissent. Medical Superintendent Dr Ashok Jaiswal, on 31.3.2013 has approved the recommendation of the purchase committee and issued sanction order. On 29.3.2011 a circular was issued enhancing delegated financial powers making it compulsory to take financial sanction leading to limiting the powers of purchase. 3. A circular was issued by the DoHFW on 5.11.2013 referring to earlier circular dated 30.9.2013 which advised Medical Superintendents/Directors of the Health Department to refrain from incurring expenditure without prior approval of the competent authority. It also warned departmental action and entry into ACRs if this directive was not followed. It reiterated "all HoDs/MSs & Accounts functionaries working in hospitals...advised again that incurring expenditure or liability involving expenditure without the approval of the Competent Authority is expressly against the rules and financial propriety, and such lapses must be strictly avoided... In another paragraph All MSs and HoDs are advised to strictly adhere to this rule. at the end of the circular once against stated "non-compliance of this will be viewed seriously and may invite appropriate departmental action including adverse entry in the ACR. 4. Special Secretary (H&FW) SB Shashank issued a show cause notice on 10.6.2013 to Members of Purchase Committee through Medical Superintendent (MS). The contents of show cause notice pointed out sanction accorded by MS at his level for which he was not competent, members of purchase committee so constituted for this purpose did not point out about the competence of authority, due to this lapse on the part of members of purchase committee, the bill was prepared and presented to PAO. 5. Head of Office Dr. Kulbhushan Goyal issued a memorandum on 19.9.2013 directing Dr Avinash Purchase Officer and Shri Anand Kumar, Senior Accounts Officer to furnish explanation. On the same day Dr Avinash was asked to hand over charge of purchase officer with immediate effect to Dr Kanhar. 6. Mr. Nutan Guha Biswas, Principal Secretary to Lt Governor sent a note on 4.8.14, stating: "The matter was examined in this secretariat and submitted to Hon'ble Lt Governor for orders. Hon'ble Lt Governor approved the Department of Health & FW to submit the proposal for initiating Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 against all the members of Purchase Committee and the concerned MS of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for the irregular purchase of the High End Photocopier (Model Aficio MP 5002SP) through Directorate of Vigilance. 7. Appellant alleged that though Lt Governor approved disciplinary action against Purchase Committee members and MS only but his name was also included by the accused officers to harass him. 8. Appellant by his RTI application dated 12.3.2015 (No.000802) asked the Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, GNCTD: "Please provide certified photocopy of file noting and proposal approved by Hon'ble Lt Governor, in which initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against all members of purchase committee and the concerned medical superintendent of Aruna Asif Hospital for the irregular purchasing of High End photocopier machine is ordered". Having received no information, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached the Commission. Appellant claimed that PIO and FAA are habitual in not providing reply for his RTIs. He sought information and imposition of penalty against PIO. 9. He also wanted a certified copy of the note of Principal Secretary Health forwarded proposing disciplinary action against appellant (himself) only during July 2014. He believes no such order was given. 10. The appellant Dr. Avinash Kumar alleged that he has lodged written complaints against the corruption prevalent in the Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital at least in ten cases and because of that he became target of harassment. 11. The appellant Dr. Avinash Kumar on 1.8.2013 made a written complaint to Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, alleging corruption against the CMO, NSFG and Chairman Medical Board stating that since three years he was indulged in corrupt activity but no action was being taken in spite of several complaints coming from people in general. He wrote 13 points explaining the wide spread corruption in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital relating to sanitary service, purchase contracts, outsource sanitation and house-keeping services. Detailed information of corruption in ten cases. (See Annexure 1 Complaint made to CVC and Annexure 2 for summary of ten cases of corruption in Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital submitted to CVC by complainant). Then the complaint of appellant went through different offices---Chief Secretary Delhi-Principal Secretary, Health and reached Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. The appellant complained that CVC did not bother to secure his name and disclosed it to the officers of the AAA Hospital against whom he complained. 12. The CVC wrote a letter (Annexure 3) to appellant on 13.8.2013 stating that under Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informer Resolution(PIDPI), the complainant has to confirm that he has actually sent the complaint within 30 days in an envelope which must be superscribed "Public Interest Disclosure & Protection of Informer Resolution PIDPIO" without giving his name and address. 13. Dr. Avinash Kumar on 28.8.2013 complained to Secretary CVC, that the letter (under Annexure 4) written by CVC has landed in office of MS, AAAGH, instead of being received by him only. He also stated that he was called in to chambers of MS and was questioned for complaining. He said that after this the MS went on telling officers to be careful as I have complained to CVC, then he was defamed and harassed. 14. As a reward for this disclosure the himself was not only relieved of his duties of purchase officer but also was transferred to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpur, Delhi by order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure 5) which is far off from his residence, to harass him. Everybody including CVC and MS of AAAGH have violated the principle of not disclosing identity of the complainant. 15. Appellant... |
To continue reading
Request your trial