CIC/SA/A/2015/000186. Case: Avtar Singh Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Bd. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | CIC/SA/A/2015/000186 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Vijay Kumar Maggo (JLO) |
| Judges | M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right to Information Act |
| Judgement Date | June 05, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner 1. The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Vijay Kumar Maggo (JLO). FACTS: 2. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for certified copies of the statements of Shri Balkishan Kapoor, UDC and Sh Raju Punajisiriskar, Assistant director recorded by the vigilance branch (DUSIB) in connection with the embezzlement of fund as pointed out by Special Audit Party, Directorate of Audit Govt. of GNCTD. PIO denied to provide the information sought on the ground of its disclosure hampering the process of investigation. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. FAA by his order dated 13.11.2014 denied the information on the ground that the copies of the statements of the charged officials can be provided to the appellant only after the completion of the investigation by ACB and filing of charge-sheet before the Hon'ble Court of Law. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached Commission. Decision: 3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that while he was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent department, he was made to involve in an embezzlement case within 5 months of his joining the office, for no fault of his, as the bills signed by him were submitted to him after the two officers, namely, Mr. Balkishan Kapoor, UDC and Mr. Raju Punajisiriskar, Asstt. Director had checked and verified the same. Before the inquiry officer, they made submissions that the appellant is not at fault. Therefore, in order to vindicate himself before the Court of law, he needs the said submissions in writing from the two employees. 4. The respondent officer submitted that the appellant is involved in a case of embezzlement of Rs. 20 crores, in which about 28 employees including the appellant are booked for enquiry. Even though the case against the some employees has been finalised and... |
To continue reading
Request your trial